Famous quotes

"Happiness can be defined, in part at least, as the fruit of the desire and ability to sacrifice what we want now for what we want eventually" - Stephen Covey

Sunday, August 31, 2025

5 Things Middle class should not do : Warren Buffet

 Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, has built one of the greatest fortunes in history through disciplined investing and wise financial decisions. While many focus on his stock-picking abilities, Buffett’s wisdom extends to everyday spending habits that can make or break middle-class families’ economic futures.


His philosophy centers on distinguishing between wants and needs, focusing on value rather than status, and understanding that every dollar not spent on depreciating assets can compound over time through smart investments.


Buffett’s approach to personal finance isn’t extreme frugality—it’s about making intelligent choices, prioritizing long-term wealth building over short-term gratification. His lifestyle exemplifies these principles, from his modest home to his practical vehicle choices. Buffett’s teachings offer a roadmap to financial independence for middle-class families looking to build wealth through conscious spending decisions. According to Warren Buffett, here are the five terrible things the middle class should stop buying.



1. Buying Cars for Status and to Impress the Neighbors

Warren Buffett has long advocated against purchasing vehicles for status rather than utility. He famously stated, “The car is going from point A to point B, and if it does it safely, that’s all that counts.” This philosophy reflects his broader investment principle that assets should provide real value rather than serve as expensive status symbols.


Buffett practices what he preaches, driving modest vehicles over his career and keeping them for years rather than constantly upgrading. He even bought hail-damaged cars to save on the initial depreciation. His approach highlights a crucial financial reality that many middle-class families overlook: cars are depreciating assets that lose value rapidly from the moment they leave the dealership.



New vehicles typically lose significant value in their first year, with luxury cars often experiencing steeper depreciation. The financial impact extends beyond the initial purchase price when considering insurance costs, which are substantially higher for expensive vehicles. A family choosing a reliable used car over a luxury vehicle can redirect the savings toward investments that grow in value over time.



The opportunity cost becomes staggering when calculated over decades. When invested consistently in the stock market, the difference between a luxury car payment and a modest vehicle payment can compound into substantial wealth. Buffett understands that impressing neighbors with expensive cars often comes at the expense of building absolute financial security for one’s family.


2. Gambling and Lottery Tickets

“To quite an extent, gambling is a tax on ignorance… A government shouldn’t make it easy for people to take their Social Security checks and [waste them pulling] a handle”. – Warren Buffett.


Buffett views gambling and lottery tickets as one of the worst possible uses of money for middle-class families. He has described lottery playing as fundamentally flawed thinking because the odds are mathematically designed to favor the house, creating guaranteed negative expected returns for players.


The lottery system operates on inferior odds, with major jackpots offering chances so remote they’re barely worth calculating. Despite these terrible odds, many middle-class families regularly purchase tickets, viewing them as harmless entertainment or a potential escape from financial struggles. Buffett sees this differently—money that could build wealth through compounding.


The annual amount many households spend on lottery tickets and gambling represents a significant opportunity cost. When that same money is invested consistently in low-cost index funds, the compound growth over decades can create substantial wealth. Buffett’s investment philosophy emphasizes the power of time and compounding gains, making every dollar count toward long-term financial security.


This spending pattern also reflects a mindset that conflicts with Buffett’s value investing principles. Instead of hoping for unlikely windfalls, he advocates for the mathematical certainty of compound growth through disciplined investing and wise financial choices.


3. High-Fee Investment Products

One of Buffett’s most passionate crusades involves warning investors against high-fee investment products that erode returns over time. He has consistently stated that “a very low-cost index fund is going to beat a majority of the amateur-managed money or professionally-managed money.”



Buffett’s conviction runs so deep that he famously wagered with hedge fund managers, betting that a simple S&P 500 index fund would outperform their complex strategies over a decade. He won that bet decisively, proving that expensive doesn’t mean better in the investment world.


The mathematics of fees can be devastating to long-term wealth building. Investment products with high annual fees compound against investors year after year, creating a significant drag on returns. Many middle-class investors don’t realize how minor percentage differences in fees can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime of investing.


Complex investment products often come with multiple fees that can be difficult to understand. Buffett advocates for transparency and simplicity, favoring low-cost index funds that track broad market performance. His approach eliminates the guesswork and high costs of trying to beat the market through expensive active management.


The solution aligns perfectly with Buffett’s overall investment philosophy: buy quality investments at reasonable prices and hold them for long periods. This strategy works for individual stocks and applies equally well to choosing investment vehicles for retirement accounts and long-term savings.


4. Luxury Items to Impress Others

Buffett’s philosophy on luxury purchases stems from his belief that “price is what you pay, value is what you get.” He consistently chooses substance over appearance, focusing on an item’s utility rather than the status it might convey to others.


His personal lifestyle exemplifies this principle. Despite his vast wealth, Buffett continues living in the same modest home he purchased decades ago. His wardrobe consists of practical clothing rather than designer labels, and his daily habits reflect someone who values function over form.


The markup on luxury goods often far exceeds their practical utility or superior quality. Many luxury items carry price premiums based primarily on brand recognition and perceived status rather than measurable improvements in performance or durability. This creates poor value propositions that conflict with Buffett’s investment principles.


For middle-class families, luxury purchases can represent significant opportunity costs. The money spent on expensive handbags, jewelry, or designer clothing could instead be invested in assets that grow in value over time. Buffett recognizes that true wealth comes from owning appreciating assets rather than consuming depreciating luxury goods.


The psychological aspect also matters in Buffett’s thinking. Purchasing items to impress others often leads to lifestyle inflation and keeping up with social pressures that can derail long-term financial planning. His approach prioritizes financial independence over social signaling.


5. Buying Things With High-Interest Consumer Debt

“Interest rates are very high on credit cards. Sometimes they are 18%. Sometimes they are 20%. If I borrowed money at 18% or 20%, I’d be broke”. – Warren Buffett


Perhaps no financial mistake bothers Buffett more than carrying high-interest consumer debt. He has stated that borrowing money at credit card interest rates would leave him “broke,” highlighting the mathematical impossibility of building wealth while paying such extreme borrowing costs.


Current credit card interest rates often exceed what successful investors earn in the stock market over time. This creates an impossible situation where debt costs compound faster than investment returns can grow. Buffett recognizes this as a wealth-destruction mechanism that can trap families in cycles of financial stress.


The minimum payment structure on credit cards particularly troubles Buffett because it extends repayment periods while maximizing interest charges. Families paying only minimum amounts can spend decades repaying relatively small balances while paying multiples of the original purchase price in interest charges.


Buffett’s solution involves paying cash for purchases and living within one’s means rather than relying on credit for lifestyle maintenance. He advocates eliminating high-interest debt before beginning any investment program because the guaranteed savings from debt elimination often exceed potential investment returns.


This principle extends beyond credit cards to other forms of high-interest consumer debt. Auto loans, personal loans, and financing for luxury purchases all represent wealth-eroding expenses that conflict with building long-term financial security.


Conclusion

Warren Buffett’s wisdom about personal spending habits offers middle-class families a clear path toward building lasting wealth. His principles aren’t about extreme deprivation—they’re about making intelligent choices that prioritize long-term financial security over short-term status and gratification.


The common thread throughout Buffett’s advice involves understanding opportunity costs and the power of compounding gains. Every dollar spent on depreciating assets or high-interest debt represents money that can’t compound and grow through smart investments.


By avoiding these five financial traps, middle-class families can redirect their resources toward building real wealth that provides genuine financial security and independence over time."

EY analysis of Indian Union Budgets of the past 10 years

 The analysis of Union Budgets from 2015 to 2025 highlights significant shifts in public expenditure priorities and the management of tax revenues, particularly concerning their impact on productivity and utilization.

Effect of Public Expenditure on Productivity

The GoI has made a conscious effort to progressively create space for capital expenditure expansion, recognizing its crucial role in driving growth and productivity. This strategy is visible across several budgets:

  • Increased Capital Expenditure: From FY15 to FY26 (Budget Estimate), GoI's capital expenditure as a percentage of GDP increased by 1.56 percentage points, rising from 1.58% to 3.14%. As a share of total expenditure, capital outlay nearly doubled from 11.8% in FY15 to 22.1% in FY26 (BE). This augmentation was financed almost equally by revenue enhancement and expenditure restructuring, including a 0.72 percentage point fall in revenue expenditure relative to GDP.
  • Focus on Infrastructure: The increase in capital expenditure has largely favored non-defence capital expenditure, which is closely linked to infrastructure development. This category reached a peak of 2.15% of GDP in FY24. The National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP) and GatiShakti initiative are key programs aimed at accelerating infrastructure spending, with the objective of providing a strong foundation for medium-to long-term growth.
  • Multiplier Effects: Public expenditure, especially capital expenditure, is recognized for its higher multiplier effects on output and employment compared to revenue expenditure. An RBI study estimated the central government's capital expenditure multiplier at 2.45 in the first year and 3.14 in the second year, with non-defence capital expenditure having even higher multipliers (2.10 impact, 3.84 peak).
  • Quality of Fiscal Deficit: There has been a consistent improvement in the quality of fiscal deficit since FY21. This indicates that a larger proportion of government borrowing is now being used for capital asset formation rather than revenue expenditure, which directly supports productivity and long-term growth. The share of capital expenditure in fiscal deficit increased to 57.4% in FY24.
  • Incentivizing States: The central government has also encouraged state governments to increase their capital expenditures through measures such as earmarking portions of grants for capital asset creation and providing 50-year interest-free loans. This is critical as many infrastructure projects fall under state supervision.
  • Growth Stimulus: Budgets have aimed to stimulate growth by supporting aggregate demand, focusing on job-creating sectors with high multiplier effects like infrastructure, construction, agriculture, and health. While there was a heavy reliance on fiscal stimulus during the COVID-19 crisis, particularly in FY21, the subsequent efforts focused on restructuring expenditure to prioritize capital formation.

Share of Tax Revenues and Its Utilization

The sources provide a detailed account of the trends in tax revenues and how they have been utilized to support fiscal reforms and economic objectives:

  • Combined and GoI's Tax-GDP Ratio:
    • India's combined tax-GDP ratio, which had historically hovered between 16% and 18%, shows signs of breaking this ceiling, increasing by over 2 percentage points from FY15 to FY24. It reached 18.5% in FY24 and is projected to rise to about 23.5% by FY48.
    • The GoI's Gross Tax Revenue (GTR) to GDP ratio increased from 10% in FY15 and FY20 to 11.7% in FY24.
    • However, the trend growth rate of GoI's GTR has been declining since FY08, falling to 4.8% by FY22 (BE). A sustained increase to 10% or above is needed to reduce reliance on larger fiscal deficits.
  • Composition of Tax Revenues:
    • Direct taxes are expected to contribute more significantly to the overall tax-GDP ratio going forward. Corporate Income Tax (CIT) reforms in September 2019 reduced rates, leading to an initial contraction in CIT revenues in FY20 (-16.1%). However, CIT revenues have since recovered, showing high growth and buoyancy in subsequent years.
    • Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced in July 2017, initially resulted in lower growth and buoyancy due to the rate structure not being revenue-neutral and the initial emphasis on lower rates in the GST Council. The effective weighted average GST rate declined from 14.4% in May 2017 to 11.6% in July-September 2019.
    • Union Excise Duties on petroleum products have played a role in compensating for revenue losses from CIT reforms, with their share in GTR increasing to 15.1% in FY22 (BE) from 11.2% in FY19.
  • Share with States: The recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission led to a sharp increase in states' share of central taxes from 32% to 42%. However, the actual effective share of states was often lower (e.g., 28.9% in FY21 (RE) and 30.0% in FY22 (BE)) due to the increasing role of cesses and surcharges, which are not shared with states. This effectively reduces the divisible pool for states.
  • Non-Tax Revenues (NTR):
    • NTRs have generally languished in the 2-3% range of GDP over a long period, which is low compared to other selected countries. These revenues originate from government ownership of financial and physical assets, as well as services provided, often with less than their full potential realized.
    • Key initiatives to augment NTR include spectrum sales and the National Monetization Pipeline (NMP) for monetizing government and public sector-owned assets, including defence assets. The NMP aimed to monetize assets worth INR6 lakh crore from FY22 to FY25, with high achievement rates.
    • RBI dividends are a significant, albeit volatile, component of NTR, showing periodic jumps that can influence government revenues.
  • Utilization of Tax Revenues:
    • Tax revenues, along with non-tax revenues and non-debt capital receipts, are the primary sources for financing government expenditure.
    • A significant portion of revenue enhancement, including increased tax-GDP ratio, has been used to create fiscal space for augmenting capital expenditure and supporting the shift towards an investment-led growth strategy.
    • The need to adhere to Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act (FRBMA) targets has often led to the burden of fiscal deficit reduction falling on expenditure curtailment, particularly revenue expenditure and subsidies.
    • Despite increased borrowing, especially during the COVID-19 crisis, a significant portion of additional funds was sometimes directed towards revenue expenditure, highlighting challenges in fully directing resources towards asset-forming capital expenditure. For instance, in FY20 and FY21, approximately 80% of additional borrowing financed revenue or non-asset forming expenditure.
    • Subsidy reforms, including better targeting and delivery through Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) leveraging digital infrastructure, have led to a steady reduction in major subsidies as a percentage of GDP, falling from a peak of 3.57% in FY21 to 1.16% in FY25 (BE).
    • Interest payments constitute a significant and growing portion of government expenditure and revenue receipts (e.g., 42.7% of revenue receipts in FY23), particularly due to higher debt levels incurred during the COVID-19 period. Reducing the debt-GDP ratio is expected to lower interest payments, freeing up fiscal space for productive spending.
    • The abolition of the plan-non-plan distinction in expenditures (FY15 onwards) aimed to improve efficiency by preventing undue prioritization of new asset creation over essential maintenance.
    • Increased budgetary transparency, including bringing off-budget borrowings (like FCI's borrowing from NSSF for food subsidies) onto the government's books from FY21 onwards, has improved the accuracy of fiscal deficit reporting.

Overall, the Union Budgets from 2015 to 2025 demonstrate a strategic reorientation towards an investment-led growth model, funded by both tax revenue growth and structural expenditure reforms, while also prioritizing fiscal consolidation and transparency. However, challenges persist in consistently achieving tax buoyancy, managing the share of tax revenues with states, and fully directing all borrowed funds towards productive capital expenditures.

Comparison of Central Govt bailout of Banks

 

Feature India (2017–2021 Recap Bonds) Indonesia (1997–2004 Bank Restructuring Bonds) Ireland (2008 NAMA Bonds)
Context Twin Balance Sheet Problem: Stalled projects → NPAs in PSBs. Asian Financial Crisis: Currency crash + bank insolvencies. Global Financial Crisis: Property bubble burst, banks loaded with toxic real-estate loans.
Issuer Government of India. Government of Indonesia via IBRA (Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency). Irish government via NAMA (National Asset Management Agency).
Subscribers / Holders Public Sector Banks (PSBs) themselves; non-tradable. Commercial banks; BRBs were tradable & could be sold for liquidity. Irish banks (who swapped bad loans for NAMA bonds); later held by ECB & markets.
Purpose Boost bank equity capital without upfront fiscal cost; improve CAR. Replace NPAs with safe sovereign securities; restore solvency. Remove toxic property loans from bank balance sheets; provide liquidity.
Mode / Type Sovereign bonds, often zero-coupon or low coupon, non-tradable, long maturity. Interest-bearing sovereign bonds, long-term (10–20 years), tradable. Government-guaranteed bonds, interest-bearing, eligible as collateral at ECB.
Amount Issued ~₹2.76 lakh crore (USD ~40 bn) via recap bonds (2017–2021). ~IDR 430 trillion (≈ USD 45–50 bn). ~€30 billion NAMA bonds (≈ USD 40 bn).
Accounting Effect – Banks Assets: Recap bonds. Equity: Govt infusion → higher CAR. Assets: BRBs replace NPAs. Equity: Solvency restored. Assets: NAMA bonds replace property loans; liquidity restored.
Accounting Effect – Govt Liabilities: Public debt ↑. Assets: Higher PSB equity stake. Liabilities: Debt ↑ (up to 50% of GDP). Assets: Claims on banks & recoveries via IBRA. Liabilities: Sovereign-guaranteed bonds. Assets: NAMA held loans (often impaired).
Uniqueness “Circular internal loop” — govt issues bonds, PSBs subscribe, govt infuses equity into same PSBs. Direct swap of NPAs for sovereign bonds (banks got tradable securities). NAMA acted as a “bad bank”, using govt bonds to buy toxic loans at discounted prices.
Outcome Stabilised PSBs; supported by IBC resolutions later. Fiscal impact spread over years. Banking system rescued but govt debt surged sharply. Banks stabilised but Ireland’s fiscal position collapsed → EU/IMF bailout (2010).