Connect with us

Finance

Guess What? My Boomer Parents Were Right About Money

Published

on

Guess What? My Boomer Parents Were Right About Money

My baby boomer parents knew how to stretch a dollar. Juggling three kids, a mortgage and a couple of car loans on a middle-class income in the late ’90s was an exercise in frugality. 

We grew up hearing “Money doesn’t grow on trees” like every other kid. But when my older brother suggested our dad get more “free” money out of the ATM, the true money management lessons began. 

From my folks’ perspective, teaching healthy financial habits would have a positive influence on us as adults. That worked out pretty well for my brothers and me (here I am writing about personal finance). But not everyone in my generation shares that experience. Over 34% of Gen Zers say their parents did not set a good financial example for them, according to WalletHub’s Generational Finances survey. 

Younger generations face many objective obstacles that make it difficult for them to be financially successful, including rising living costs, student debt and high inflation. Still, it’s never too late to build solid money management skills to help your future self. 

Everything I know about saving I learned from my parents 

When I was 15, I pitched the idea of studying abroad in Ecuador through the local Rotary Club. My brother had done it a decade earlier in Chile, so my parents weren’t shocked by the idea. However, before I approached them, I made sure I was fully prepared: I had already been accepted to the program and had the funding lined up. I was ready to be fiscally responsible and autonomous, and it was all due to their money lessons over the years. 

Advertisement

Little did I know that the tips and mentorship from my boomer parents would translate beautifully to my career as a personal finance writer. So, I sat down with my folks to talk about what they taught us about money growing up. 

Tip 1: Pay your bills before you pay yourself

Every time I get paid, I hear my mom’s voice saying, “Pay your bills before you pay yourself.” I’ve carried this message with me because it emphasizes the importance of sticking to a budget. 

“Budgeting was a regular household activity because we didn’t want you to think of it as a chore,” said Kelley Hall, aka my mom. “It was normal to sit down and talk about our goals because we wanted you to visualize the payoff.” 

To this day, I feel more in control of my finances through budgeting (I use the classic pen-and-paper approach, but many of my CNET Money colleagues prefer budgeting apps). I start by setting aside a portion of my paycheck to cover the necessities: rent, utilities, groceries and student loans. Then, whatever is left is my discretionary income for nonessential items.

Tip 2: Distinguish wants from needs 

I used to cry in the backseat of my mom’s minivan because I wanted the trendy thing everyone at school was raving about. My mom would patiently say: “I want a lot of things, but do I need them?” I probably didn’t understand the sentiment back then, but my mom had an excellent point. No, I didn’t need Ugg boots in July in Texas. 

Now, whenever I see something new or scroll through Amazon, I constantly ask myself if the coveted item is a want or a need. To avoid overspending, I usually let a potential purchase simmer for 24 hours before I cash out. It also helps me set long-term goals if there’s a new pair of shoes (i.e., Doc Martens) I actually want to save for. 

Tip 3: Build credit, not debt

When I went to college, my parents encouraged me to get my first credit card because they wanted me to understand the importance of building credit. But my mom also made sure I wasn’t abusing the card by spending what I didn’t have. 

Advertisement

“I used to always tell you not to use your credit card unless you know you can pay it off in two payments,” my mom said. “If you get stuck in a cycle of just paying the minimum payment, you’ll end up building debt and not credit.” 

Today, in my late 20s, I only charge what I know I can cover and repay in full. If I start using my credit card when I don’t have the funds to pay it off, I’ll be hit with steep interest charges. And the last thing I want is debilitating credit card debt. 

Tip 4: Don’t touch your savings 

I didn’t have a piggy bank growing up. Instead, I had a giant mason jar with a map stuffed inside because I was obsessed with traveling the world. For years, I’d fill the jar with loose change and any money I made from babysitting gigs or household chores. Eventually, my parents got me a savings account. 

“That was probably your very first lesson on savings,” my mom said. “You were around 10 years old and saw the value in setting money aside for a big goal.” 

Today, I keep my savings account separate from my everyday checking account because we’re less inclined to spend what we don’t see. If I was looking at a mason jar full of cash every day, I would be tempted to spend it and not save for an emergency. 

Advertisement

Tip 5: Manage your debts so they’re easier to handle

When I applied for financial aid for college, I remember feeling quite anxious about taking on debt. Even though I wouldn’t have to pay my student loan debt for many years, I thought about the logistics of paying off that balance. That’s when my parents started talking to me about debt management. 

My dad remembers what his father told him as a kid: Your money is supposed to work for you. “That piece of advice can be applied to a lot of things, even debt,” said Chuck Hall, aka my dad. My dad passed on my grandfather’s wisdom to me. If you have debt, don’t avoid it. Make it a regular part of your budgeting so it’s more manageable. 

One way I manage my debt is by negotiating the due dates on my recurring bills. This helps me spread out my payments so I’m not broke right after my paycheck hits my checking account. 

Listen to… your parents? 

Baby boomers own more than 50% of the wealth in the US. Sure, they’ve had a longer time to grow their wealth, and they grew up experiencing a booming economy that allowed them to benefit from things like lower housing costs.

Our parents were right to say money doesn’t grow on trees, and it’s worth listening. This generation might still try planting some seeds. But knowing Gen Z, there’s an app for that.

Advertisement

Finance

UK cities where families ‘losing significant cash in the bin due to food waste’

Published

on

UK cities where families ‘losing significant cash in the bin due to food waste’

Families in Glasgow, Liverpool and Nottingham are particularly likely to be wasting high amounts of money on food that goes uneaten, a survey indicates.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK parents of children aged four to 12 found that 60% said their children refuse to eat a meal they are served at least once a week.

The average amount that parents estimated their family wasted annually on uneaten food was £283 – with families in Glasgow estimating they waste £369 on average, according to the research for Bernard Matthews.

Liverpool was another food waste hotspot in the survey, with an estimated £316 wasted annually typically by families, while in Nottingham, the average annual food waste bill was found to be £315.

In London and Belfast, families were also found to be wasting more than £300 per year on average on uneaten food, according to the research, carried out by Censuswide in May.

Advertisement

At the other end of the spectrum, families in Bristol estimated they were wasting £198 per year typically.

Half (50%) of parents surveyed felt that encouraging their child to play with food would help to reduce the pressure.

Laurence Hinton, head of marketing at Bernard Matthews, said: “Parents agree that playing with your food can take some of the pressure out of mealtimes, encouraging children to engage positively with food and ultimately making family meals more enjoyable and less wasteful.”

Here are the average amounts parents estimate they waste on food annually across various UK cities, according to the survey:

Glasgow, £369

Advertisement

Liverpool, £316

Nottingham, £315

London, £312

Belfast, £306

Leeds, £299

Advertisement

Edinburgh, £291

Newcastle, £286

Cardiff, £285

Birmingham, £277`

Manchester, £252

Advertisement

Sheffield, £251

Plymouth, £250

Brighton, £243

Southampton, £240

Norwich, £235

Advertisement

Bristol, £198

Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

On June 23, members of Congress did something commendable and all too rare: They came together to pass legislation in a broadly bipartisan move to address the housing affordability crisis in the U.S. The new law, designated the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, includes an expansive compilation of 56 separate provisions aimed at increasing the supply of housing, improving access to financing and limiting ownership by large financial institutions.

The act is more evolutionary than revolutionary, since many of the barriers are down to state and local zoning and building codes that are beyond the reach of the federal government. Still, the measure creates a framework for streamlining local permitting, removes several obstacles to expansion of manufactured homes and includes many incremental incentives that should materially improve the supply of residential housing units over time.

Housing affordability has emerged as a public policy priority in recent years, as costs have accelerated faster than incomes since the COVID pandemic. The median price of a single-family home today is $440,000, up 50% over the past six years according to the National Association of Realtors. Zillow reports that the cost to rent a single-family home has risen by 45% over the same period, while apartment rents are up 28%. Meanwhile, median nominal household income has risen by just 25% since 2020.

The housing bill cleared the House of Representatives on a vote of 358 to 32 and passed in the U.S. Senate by a margin of 85 to 5, a commendable accomplishment. However, on June 24, the president abruptly cancelled a scheduled signing ceremony in reaction to the Senate’s unwillingness to pass new voter restrictions, calling the housing act a “big yawn.” Legislators from both parties were blindsided, having anticipated a high-profile bipartisan victory to tout in advance of the approaching midterm elections.

The president’s action did provide Americans with an interesting constitutional lesson. When Congress passes a bill, the president may either sign it into law or veto the bill, challenging Congress to muster a 2/3 majority to override the veto. However, the president can also simply refuse to sign, in which case the bill becomes law after 10 calendar days, excluding Sundays, if Congress is in session. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act therefore went into effect automatically at midnight on July 11.

Advertisement

Among the numerous provisions in the law, a few stand out as particularly promising.

Manufactured housing. In what may be the most impactful action, the act eliminates one of the biggest impediments to expanding manufactured housing: the permanent chassis requirement. Since 1976, thanks to lobbying from traditional homebuilding interests, the federal government has forbidden the removal of the heavy steel trailer on which the unit was built even though 90% are never moved, and many are set on permanent foundations. This rule is risibly applied even in cases where an additional unit was stacked to form a second story. As I wrote in this space in October, factory-built homes can be produced more efficiently and therefore more affordably through mass production techniques. Eliminating the useless chassis after delivery could save a typical buyer an additional 5% and 10% of the purchase price as well as qualifying for more traditional mortgage financing.

Financial incentives to cities. Although the act does not include any additional federal funding, it directs a significant reallocation of existing incentives. The 1970s-era Community Development Block Grant program is reimagined, providing extra grant funding to high-cost metro areas that move aggressively to build affordable housing. The program is cost neutral, transferring funds from other cities that continue to discourage new unit construction through restrictive local policies.

Improving access to financing. Nearly half of the surge in housing costs is due to sharply higher mortgage interest rates since 2020. The housing act cannot impact rates, but it does provide additional access to financing. Small dollar loans of $100,000 or less will now be eligible for Federal Housing Administration guarantees, providing more access to lower-income buyers. The act also more than doubles the Federal Housing Administration loan limit for multifamily housing units.

Promoting rental homebuilding. The role of large institutions in purchasing single-family homes since the 2008 financial crisis has garnered significant public attention. The housing bill strikes a constructive balance.

Advertisement

“Large institutional investors”, defined in the bill as investors holding 350 or more single-family residences, are now prohibited from acquiring additional homes subject to specific exemptions. For instance, homes purchased for the specific purpose of renovation for rental are excluded. These institutional investors are also not required to divest their existing holdings.

Importantly, the restrictions do not apply to so-called build-to-rent acquisitions wherein large investors purchase newly constructed homes specifically for rental. Economic research generally finds that large investor ownership tends to push up home purchase prices to buyers but reduces pressure on rent costs by adding to supply, just what the doctor ordered.

Local zoning and permitting reforms. As mentioned above, states and municipalities retain jurisdiction for their own local building and zoning codes, many of which have served to hinder the construction of more affordable residential units. The new housing act directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a template incorporating best practices for modernizing zoning and land use policies to support more housing construction and renovation.

A curiously unrelated addition to the bill forbids the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital cryptocurrency version of the U.S. dollar, called a stablecoin, until 2030. The crypto industry has vigorously opposed an official U.S. stablecoin and accounted for nearly half of all corporate political contributions to federal election candidates in 2024. The president himself has amassed $1.4 billion in profits from his various crypto ventures since taking office in 2025.

Additional elements include a variety of incremental pilot projects, regulatory reforms and tweaks to existing federal housing programs that, taken together, could also have a meaningful impact and set the stage for further progress based upon the results. And perhaps most important: bipartisan cooperation, compromise and agreement.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for $4.3 million loan fraud

Published

on

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for .3 million loan fraud

LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) – A former bank chief financial officer was sentenced to three years in prison for a bank fraud scheme involving a car wash and undisclosed debts in a $4.3 million loan scheme.

The Department of Justice said Aaron T. Luneke, 44, of Columbus, was sentenced after being convicted of committing bank fraud and attempted bank fraud in connection with loans he sought to build and operate a Legacy Express Wash, a car wash in Columbus.

According to the DOJ, Luneke was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system.

After his release from prison, Luneke will begin a five-year term of supervised release. Luneke was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

The jury found that Luneke attempted to defraud Stearns Bank, located in St. Cloud, Minnesota, by using fraudulent and inflated contractor invoices to artificially inflate the valuation of the car wash property in pursuit of a $3.5 million refinancing loan. Further evidence at trial established that Luneke failed to reveal significant personal debts owed to family members in connection with the Stearns Bank loan application.

Advertisement

The jury also found that Luneke defrauded Bank of the Valley by submitting fraudulent and inflated invoices from contractors as the basis for additional construction loan proceeds, obtaining two loans totaling approximately $4,320,000.

At the sentencing, the judge found that Luneke’s abuse of his position as chief financial officer at Bank of the Valley significantly allowed for the fraud against the victim bank to occur, and helped to conceal the crime.

The DOJ said the court further determined that Luneke employed sophisticated means to carry out the scheme, and that he served an aggravating role by organizing, leading, managing, or supervising others in executing aspects of the fraud.

Luneke also obstructed justice by providing false testimony during trial and caused a victim to suffer substantial financial hardship.

Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 KOLN. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending