Home Blog

What Marketing Consultants Should Still Get Paid For in the Age of AI


AI is coming for the strategy document.

That sentence alone creates anxiety for a lot of consultants, strategists, and agencies. For years, many of us have sold research, audits, positioning exercises, customer personas, content plans, and full strategy documents as premium deliverables. Now, a business owner can sit down with an AI model and generate a surprisingly good version of many of those outputs in minutes.

That doesn’t mean consultants are finished.

But it does mean many consultants are selling the wrong thing.

I’ve been working on a concept I call the Waterline to help make sense of what’s happening.

The waterline is the level your client can reach on their own. Everything below it, they can do without you now. Everything above it is what they’re paying for. And the water keeps rising.

That’s the framework. And if you advise clients on marketing strategy, business growth, or customer acquisition, I think it may be one of the most important ways to think about your offer right now.

Why the Waterline matters for consultants right now

The traditional consulting model assumed clients needed outside help to produce insight.

That was true when gathering information, analyzing competitors, building customer personas, mapping journeys, and drafting plans required a lot of specialized labor.

But AI is changing that fast.

Today, a smart client with a model can often produce:

  • A basic competitive review
  • A first-draft ideal client profile
  • A messaging framework
  • A 90-day marketing plan
  • Content ideas and editorial structure
  • A reasonable first-pass strategy document

Not perfect? No.

Good enough to challenge what many consultants charge for? Absolutely.

That’s why the Waterline matters. It gives consultants a way to evaluate which parts of their work are still premium and which parts have gone underwater.

What is the Waterline?

The waterline is the level your client can reach on their own. Everything below it, they can do without you now. Everything above it is what they’re paying for. And the water keeps rising.

There are only three pieces of vocabulary in this framework:

The waterline

The level a client can reach on their own with a model and the knowledge they already have.

Above the waterline

What they’re paying you for.

Underwater

What they can now do without you, which means you can no longer charge for it.

This distinction matters because underwater does not mean useless.

It means the work is no longer independently valuable enough to sell as premium work.

That’s a critical difference.

The real threat is not AI. It’s being tied to the wrong business model.

There’s an old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That’s true only if the boat can rise with the water.

If it’s tied off too tightly, the incoming water doesn’t lift it. It swamps it.

That’s what’s happening to many consultants right now.

The problem is not simply that AI is getting more capable. The problem is that many firms are still tied to the same deliverables, pricing models, and value propositions that worked five years ago.

The waterline keeps rising. Their business doesn’t.

The firms that thrive will not be the ones trying to defend yesterday’s work. They will be the ones willing to change what they sell.

The Plimsoll line story: why visible lines matter

There’s a historical idea behind this metaphor that makes it even more useful.

In the 1800s, ships were often sent to sea dangerously overloaded. Samuel Plimsoll campaigned for a visible mark on a ship’s hull so people could clearly see whether it had been loaded beyond a safe limit. The British Merchant Shipping Act of 1876 helped establish mandatory load-line markings, which became associated with Plimsoll’s name.

I like that story because the value of a line is not just in what it measures. The value is that it makes something visible that people might otherwise ignore.

That’s what the Waterline does for consultants.

It makes visible how much of what we still pitch, price, and package has already gone underwater.

AI is making strategy cheaper to produce, but not easier to choose

This is where I think many people get the conversation wrong.

A lot of consultants still say something like this:

“AI can do the research, but humans still provide the judgment.”

That may be true, but it is becoming too vague to be useful. And frankly, “human judgment” is beginning to sound like a generic defense mechanism.

A better way to think about it is this:

AI is making it cheaper to produce a strategy. It isn’t necessarily making it easier for a business to make strategic choices.

That’s a much stronger distinction.

A model can produce a strategy document. It can recommend narrowing a target market, identify promising channels, prioritize initiatives, and explain tradeoffs.

But most businesses are not stuck because they lack a document.

They are stuck because they have not made the hard choices the strategy requires.

That’s where the real opportunity still lives for a consultant.

A strategy document is not the same thing as strategy

This is one of the biggest mindset shifts consultants need to make.

A strategy document is useful. But the strategy document is not the strategy.

A strategy is a set of choices. The document is just a record of them.

That distinction changes everything.

If your value is tied to producing the document, you are vulnerable.

If your value is tied to helping a leadership team make, commit to, and act on the right strategic choices, you still have a premium role.

That role may evolve too. The water keeps rising. But for now, it is still where many of the most valuable engagements live.

What remains above the waterline for a marketing consultant?

So what are clients actually paying for now?

Not just information. Not just analysis. Not just outputs.

Increasingly, they are paying for leadership around decisions.

In practical terms, that often means:

  • Challenging the owner’s assumptions
  • Identifying what matters most
  • Separating noise from signal
  • Showing what should be ignored
  • Surfacing tradeoffs
  • Sequencing action based on budget, politics, and capacity
  • Helping a team commit to fewer priorities
  • Telling a client what will not work
  • Connecting strategy to operational reality
  • Taking responsibility for a recommendation

This is especially true in founder-led businesses.

Many owners do not need more ideas. They need help choosing among too many ideas.

They do not need a thicker report. They need clarity, commitment, and direction.

Why productized process still matters even if it’s underwater

This is an important point, especially for firms like Duct Tape Marketing that have invested heavily in frameworks and methodology.

A consultant’s process can be underwater without being worthless to the consultant.

In fact, the better your process is productized, the more efficiently you can get to the work above the waterline.

That means frameworks, templates, worksheets, prompts, audits, and SOPs still matter a lot.

They just may not be the thing you lead with in the proposal.

They become the infrastructure that supports the premium work.

That’s why I keep coming back to this simple idea:

Stop charging for the process. Start using the process to get to the decisions worth charging for.

The mistake is not doing work that has gone underwater.

The mistake is building your value proposition around it.

What the Waterline looks like in a Strategy First engagement

This becomes especially clear inside a strategy engagement.

At Duct Tape Marketing, we’ve spent years developing and productizing the research, frameworks, and processes behind our Strategy First methodology. Those processes help advisors deliver consistent strategic work without reinventing every engagement.

But the process and the decisions it supports are not the same thing.

Take a few common examples.

Competitive analysis

The research itself may be increasingly underwater.

But deciding which three findings matter, which 37 do not, and what the company should actually do next may still be above the waterline.

Ideal client persona

AI can help build a persona quickly.

But choosing the segment to focus on, and helping a business accept that the customers they like most may not be the most profitable, is a different level of work.

Core messaging

AI can generate multiple positioning angles.

But choosing the one position a business can credibly own, and helping the team let go of the others, is where the stakes rise.

Marketing Hourglass and customer journey mapping

A model can map stages and identify gaps in the customer journey.

But determining which gap matters most, what should be fixed first, and what the business can realistically support is still a strategic choice.

Our Marketing Hourglass framework looks beyond the sale to the entire customer journey, from Know, Like, Trust, Try, and Buy through Repeat and Refer. It helps reveal where the business needs to focus, but the advisor still has to help the company decide what to do about those gaps.

90-day planning

AI can generate a detailed action plan in seconds.

But cutting the plan down to what the team will actually do is where real value often lies.

In almost every case, the premium work is not creating more options.

It is helping the client narrow options into commitments.

The Waterline Check: a simple exercise every consultant should run

This is where the framework becomes practical.

The Waterline is not just a metaphor. It should drive how you evaluate your offer.

Step 1: Test your three most common deliverables

Take your three most common deliverables and spend 15 minutes producing each one with an AI model such as ChatGPT or Claude.

Use only what a client would know walking into the engagement.

No internal notes. No client history. No files.

Step 2: Mark what came back 80% right

That’s underwater.

Automate it, fold it in free, or stop opening proposals with it.

The work may still be useful, but it’s no longer the foundation of your premium offer.

Step 3: Mark what the model couldn’t touch

That’s above the waterline.

The consequential decisions, the challenges to the original brief, the priorities and commitments the client could not establish independently.

That’s what page one of your proposal should be about.

Then run the Waterline Check again next quarter.

Nobody moves the line for you. And it moved while you were busy.

A question every consultant should ask now

Here is the uncomfortable question behind the entire framework:

If my client walked into our next meeting with a pretty good version of everything I planned to deliver, what would they still need me for?

If your answer is unclear, your offer is vulnerable.

If your answer is “human judgment,” that’s probably not enough.

But if your answer is helping them choose, confronting tradeoffs, deciding what to stop doing, aligning the leadership team, and getting the business to act on its strategy, you’re getting closer to the work that still deserves premium fees.

If you can’t name three decisions you’d make differently from a smart client with a model, you don’t have a premium yet. You have a tagline.

What this means for agencies, consultants, and fractional CMOs

If you sell marketing strategy, advisory services, or fractional CMO services, the Waterline has immediate implications.

1. Reposition your offer

Lead with the strategic choices you help clients make, not the documents you produce.

2. Repackage deliverables

If something is underwater, include it, automate it, or de-emphasize it. Don’t center your pitch on it.

3. Price leadership, not labor

Your highest-value work is increasingly tied to the business consequences of decisions, not the mechanics of producing materials.

4. Build a stronger method

The more repeatable your process becomes, the more energy you can spend where clients still need you most.

5. Re-run the Waterline Check regularly

What was premium six months ago may be table stakes now.

The future of marketing consulting is above the waterline

Consultants don’t need to panic. But we do need to stop pretending yesterday’s premium work will stay premium just because it still takes effort.

The water keeps rising.

Some of the work we used to sell is going underwater for good.

That doesn’t eliminate the need for advisors. It raises the standard for what advisors need to be.

The future belongs to consultants who can move from producing strategy to leading strategic choices.

That is where the value is. That is where the leadership is.

And for now, that is what still sits above the waterline.

Frequently asked questions about AI and marketing consulting

What is the Waterline in marketing consulting?

The Waterline is a framework developed by Duct Tape Marketing to identify what clients can now accomplish independently using AI and what they still need a consultant to provide. The waterline is the level clients can reach on their own. Work below it is underwater, while work above it represents what they’re still paying for.

What does underwater mean in consulting?

Underwater refers to work clients can now accomplish on their own, often with AI. It may still be valuable within a consulting engagement, but it no longer supports the same independent premium fee because the client can produce it without the consultant.

Is AI replacing marketing strategy consultants?

AI is making many traditional consulting deliverables easier and cheaper to produce, including research, audits, customer personas, and strategy documents. However, businesses may still need outside leadership to make difficult strategic choices, resolve competing priorities, and act on recommendations. Consultants need to continually demonstrate where they create value beyond what clients can accomplish independently.

What should marketing consultants charge for in the age of AI?

Marketing consultants should build their offers around outcomes and strategic decisions clients cannot reliably achieve on their own. This can include challenging assumptions, selecting priorities, navigating organizational constraints, securing leadership commitment, and guiding implementation. The value lies in what changes for the client, not simply the documents delivered.

What is the Waterline Check?

The Waterline Check is a quarterly exercise developed by Duct Tape Marketing. Consultants take their three most common deliverables and spend 15 minutes producing each with an AI model, using only information a client would already know. Work the model gets 80% right is considered underwater. Work the client still cannot accomplish independently belongs above the waterline and should shape the consultant’s offer.

How does the Waterline apply to fractional CMOs?

For fractional CMOs, the Waterline highlights the difference between delivering marketing outputs and providing marketing leadership. Research, plans, reporting, and many tactical recommendations may become easier for clients to produce with AI. The fractional CMO must demonstrate value through strategic direction, resource allocation, organizational alignment, and decisions that produce meaningful business results.

Run your own Waterline Check

If you advise clients on marketing, growth, or strategy, I’d encourage you to run your own Waterline Check this quarter.

Take your three most common deliverables and see what a model can produce in 15 minutes.

Then ask yourself what your client would still need from you if they already had those outputs in hand.

That answer may tell you more about the future of your consulting business than any AI prediction ever will.

The Entire Map of Personal Finance in 17 Minutes



MONEY series 👉

🎬 CAN YOU HELP ME START A YOUTUBE CHANNEL LIKE YOURS?
I’ve put together a step-by-step roadmap showing exactly how I grew and scaled this channel to 10+ languages and made over $1.7 Million. Get the Playbook here:
👉

🧠 I WATCH THESE VIDEOS BUT FORGET EVERYTHING. WHAT DO I DO?
That’s why I built the Library. 110+ books, and 2 new ones every month:
👉
Watching once feels like learning, but a week later it’s gone. So every book comes 3 ways: a 2-page visual summary you can reread in 5 minutes, audio for the drive to work or the gym, and the full summary. See it, hear it, do it, until it sticks. I add 2 new books every month and email you when they’re in. Pay once, no subscription, refund anytime.

━━━ MORE QUESTIONS I GET 👇 ━━━

🎧 HOW DO YOU FINISH 1 BOOK A WEEK?
I don’t read, I listen! The secret is to only listen to books that solve a problem you’re facing right now. It keeps you hooked while you commute or do chores. It’s also the easiest way to become a regular reader. The Library has 110+ audio summaries, so you can pick the one that fits your problem today:
👉

✍️ I LIKE YOUR WHITEBOARD ANIMATIONS. HOW DO YOU MAKE THEM?
Most of our videos are made in VideoScribe, and some mix in 2D animation. If you want to learn it yourself, my complete VideoScribe course is included in the Playbook, along with everything else I used to build this channel:
👉

🤖 WHICH AI TOOLS DO YOU USE?
None! Everything is crafted from scratch by me and my team. We have been producing videos this way since 2016—no shortcuts, just pure human creativity.

⏳ WHY DON’T YOU PUBLISH MORE OFTEN?
Because every video takes a long time to get right. I go through the whole book, look for the simplest examples, and sometimes write 20 versions of the same script. Anyone can give you information. I want every video to be so clear that you actually change something after watching it.

source

I Rent, Spend What I Want, and Still Got Rich.


Ramit Sethi did everything the financial “experts” said not to: he rented instead of buying, upgraded to new, expensive cars, spent plenty on luxury vacations, and still made millions in the process. And in a world where the economy feels more and more hopeless every day, Ramit says there is still an antidote to unnerving personal finances: set up your saving, investing, and spending on autopilot.

You’ve probably heard of Ramit: he wrote the bestseller I Will Teach You To Be Rich, created How to Get Rich on Netflix, and hosts the Money for Couples podcast. If there’s anyone who knows personal finance and how to optimize it, it’s Ramit.

And Ramit didn’t do this alone. In a world where couples often feel financially isolated from each other, Ramit developed a method that helps you and your partner build a rich life together—whatever that means to you: nice vacations, fancy cars, dinners out, or just a babysitter more than once every few weeks. This is all possible if you can get four key personal finance numbers in check—and Ramit is sharing them today.

In between, we’ll cover why Ramit refuses to stop renting (for now), why everyone is pushing primary homeownership down your throat, and the most common couples’ money mistake that isn’t just derailing your rich life, but your relationship, too.

Dave:
Ramit Seiti did everything the modern financial experts said not to do. He rented instead of buying. He upgraded to new expensive cars. He spent plenty on luxury vacations and he still made millions in the process. You’ve probably heard of Ramit. He wrote the bestseller, I Will Teach You to Be Rich. He has a Netflix show called How to Get Rich, and he hosts the Money for Couples podcast. And Ramit’s message really couldn’t come at a better time because in today’s economy where everything feels a little bit hopeless, doing the opposite of what the gurus tell you might actually be the right way to build wealth. To Ramit, money is not that hard. You just need to stop making it hard for yourself. He invests automatically, he spends meaningfully, and makes choices that are best for both his bank account and his lifestyle. Today on the show, we’re going deep on one of those choices.
Why renting beats owning for many Americans right now? And Ramit makes one thing clear. If you and your partner get in sync on four basic personal finance numbers, you will build your rich life, whatever that means to you. What’s up everyone? I’m Dave Meyer, chief investment officer at BiggerPockets. We got a great show for you today with Ramit Seiti. You know him from his YouTube channel or his book, both named I Will Teach You to be Rich or his podcast Money for Couples. Let’s bring on Ramit. Ramit, thank you for being here. We’re so excited to have you.

Ramit:
Thanks for having me.

Dave:
I want to start big picture here and talk about the moment that we’re in, in the American economy. How would you describe the climate right now?

Ramit:
Confusing. We have record high housing prices, relatively high interest rates compared to the last few years, but prices have not gone down even though we have more sellers increasingly. Real estate prices are sticky. We have a K-shaped economy where many people in the press are talking about how horrible things are. But when I walk around in LA, in Manhattan, there’s a place that’s selling $60 loaves of rye bread and there’s sometimes a line out the door. So it’s very confusing, but I also think lots of opportunity and also a lot of opportunities for tried and true financial advice where we don’t have to innovate on certain things. We can just do what has worked for a long time and it actually still works.

Dave:
Well, I’m glad you said that because it feels to me that there is a growing economic hopelessness maybe among younger people. I’m a millennial, even in my generation, even in my friends who are relatively well off and have good jobs, just this feeling that you can’t really get ahead right now and that things are so unaffordable. But I’m curious, you said that perhaps nothing has really changed and the same principles of personal finance are still true even in this confusing environment?

Ramit:
Some are, some are not. Some have really changed and mostly for the worst, especially for young people. There’s a lot of rage for young people and actually understandably so. When I graduated from college in 04 and 05, even back then there were people playing chicken little, “Oh my God, there’s no chance of us getting ahead.” And I did not really take them seriously. And I remember there was a comment, I vividly remember it, basically saying this was around 06, 07, “There’s no way to get ahead. Investing, that’s what old people do. It doesn’t work for us anymore.” And I remember responding to that comment and saying, “That’s what people have been saying for 50 years and that person probably did not invest. They probably missed 15 plus years of a bull market where they could have made millions just investing a small amount of money every month, all because they had this narrative that things are incredibly difficult and there’s no way for me to get ahead.” However, some of that might actually be true now.
The chance for the average person to buy a house in many cities, not just Manhattan, but in many cities is now effectively zero. There are no paths for a person in many, many high cost of living, even medium cost of living cities earning a median wage to buy a house. It is impossible. And we shouldn’t shrug our shoulders and we certainly should not do what a lot of older people have done. Oh, stop buying avocado toast. That’s actually insulting and wrong. I think the new series that somebody needs to launch is taking boomers out and actually asking them, how much do you think it costs to buy this gallon of gas, this thing of groceries, and of course a house. The numbers are staggering and these are not accidental choices. These are policy decisions that we have made in this country that have made housing completely and totally unaffordable.
So I think there’s a lot of rage and understandably so. With that said, there are still opportunities we can use to get ahead and that’s why it’s so confusing right now.

Dave:
Totally. Yeah. And I think the housing thing is very real, some of the lowest affordability in housing we’ve ever seen in this country. And I don’t see it getting better anytime soon without big government policy, some sort of black swan event in the economy. It seems unfortunately like we’re here to stay. You can’t go on social media or read the news and not hear about some new prediction that your job is going away. And so I think of these things combining where it’s very hard to afford a home. The labor market is uncertain. If you’re trying to raise a family, there’s all sorts of expensive costs there. People want to know what to do. So that’s why you’re here. What do you do?

Ramit:
We cannot control what’s happening in the macro economy. We can’t control if AI has taken or will take our job. We can control to a pretty good extent how much we are saving and how much we are investing. And a lot of this sounds like fuddy-duddy old advice. Oh, you’re telling me I need to save 10%? Well, are you? Are you actually contributing the right amount to your retirement accounts? Are you actually putting money on auto save? It’s so funny how many people are looking for alternative investments when they’re not even doing the basic foundational work. This is the equivalent of people in the fitness world looking for some new peptide. It’s like, buddy, you haven’t gone to the gym since 1987. You don’t know what a foam roller is. What are we talking about peptides? Let’s get the basics done. Then we can work on some of the alternative stuff.
This drives me insane. And I can tell you, I have a podcast, I bring couples on my show, Money for Couples, and these couples apply. They go through a lot of screening. It takes months and months for them to appear on the show. You know what percentage of them have read my book, I Will Teach You, which by the way, is available in every public library in the country. Do you know what percentage of them have read my book?

Dave:
Maybe like 25%, a quarter.

Ramit:
I wish. Less than 10%.

Dave:
Really?

Ramit:
Yes.

Dave:
What is that about?

Ramit:
The average American has never read a single book about money.

Dave:
That’s wild.

Ramit:
And yet by the time they are 40, it is the number one source of worry and concern for them. So I have a lot of empathy for the fact that housing as a policy decision because of NIMBYs has made it incredibly unaffordable, especially for young people. I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that childcare is incredibly expensive, but I have zero sympathy for people who find money difficult and have not gone to a public library and read a single good book, whether it’s mine or somebody else’s, on personal finance.

Dave:
It’s so true. Just take the easiest possible way to solving this problem for yourself is probably step one there. But I think our audience actually is relatively educated about finance and is committed to it. If they’re listening to this podcast, they want to improve their financial future. And so savings, obviously one of them, but how do you view saving versus investing and what you should prioritize? And out of your own personal recommendations, what do you recommend investing in?

Ramit:
Well, I’m an index investor, so the vast majority of my net worth is in index funds. I love it because my index fund does not call me at night. My index fund does not have phantom costs. My index fund doesn’t require me to ever go into the worst place on planet earth, Home Depot.

Dave:
What?

Ramit:
No, I hate Hoe Depot.

Dave:
Oh, I love Home Depot.

Ramit:
You know what? I have a rich life. My rich life is that I die before ever walking in Home Depot again. I never want to go there. I don’t own a toolbox. And when I posted this on social media, by the way, a lot of people said, “What kind of man doesn’t own a toolbox?” These guys are trapped in their own cage of masculinity thinking that I have to own a toolbox. I own Japanese pens. Do they? The toolbox guys? No. We all have our rich life and mine is not going to Home Depot.

Dave:
That’s right. It’s up to you, but I love Home Depot. I’ll wander around those aisles for… I’m not even a handy person. I stink at that kind of stuff, but I just like seeing all the stuff in there for some reason.

Ramit:
There’s something for everybody. Wait, what are we talking about? Sorry, I went off on my digression.

Dave:
No, it’s totally fine. We were talking about investing.You were saying index funds.

Ramit:
Yes. I’m an index investor. And because I focus on money and psychology, when you talk to many people, when they talk about saving, they’ll say stuff like, “I try to save, but I take one step forward, two step back.” I don’t try to save, I automate it. So it’s automated investing, automated saving. These are kind of classic concepts, but I think taken to operational excellence. For example, when I’m saving, I am saving not just for an emergency fund, but I’m also saving for named accounts. 2028 trip to Tokyo, I know how much I’m going to spend. I’ve broken it down by, let’s say 72 months until I’m going to go there. I add a little buffer and the money is automatically deposited. So by the time I go on the trip, it’s already planned and paid for. As an example, to take it to a more extreme level, when I was in my 20s, I knew that one day I would get married.
I knew that I would have a huge wedding. I love a big wedding. In fact, my philosophy is for the important things in life. I don’t want price to be the number one, number two, or number five concern. When there’s something important, I want to be able to spend effectively what I want to spend, anything. And a wedding for me, especially in my culture, but even just for me is important. So I started saving money in my 20s. Again, I had not even met my now wife, but what this really shows is when we’re talking about saving, number one, if you can start to think beyond the month and start to think next year, five years, 10 years, or ultimately 30 plus years, that is really powerful. And two, you actually have to save less every single month. I am so thankful to my 20-something self that by the time we went to plan our wedding, which was this multi-day affair, money was not a primary concern.
We could do what we wanted. So for everybody listening, I know that we all know about saving. This is a somewhat pretty sophisticated audience. Saving is great, but I would actually urge you to get more specific with saving. I don’t want a junk drawer of money. I want it broken out by named accounts or whether it’s a down payment for a house, a car, whatever. And then as for investing, we have a lot of different routes people choose. I know people on this show tend to love real estate. I’m personally not into real estate. I rent by choice. I have for more than 20 years and I’ve made far more renting and investing than I ever would’ve by buying, but there are lots of different approaches to investing. All I ask is that we run the numbers. And if we do that and we choose what we like to invest in, we know what we want to end up at, wonderful.

Dave:
Amen. Agree. And I want to talk to you about your views on housing in just a minute. But while we’re on the topic of savings, I’m just curious, has delayed gratification always been something that comes easy to you? Because I think that’s the hard part of saving. It’s not setting up the automation, it’s choosing to use your resources for something in the future rather than using it for right now.

Ramit:
Yes. Ever since I was a kid, my parents taught us about delayed gratification, about working really hard. Education was massive in our house. I think that really translates into when I learned about investing in my early teenage years. And once I really understood compound interest, especially at age 14 when I started investing, I was like, wait, that’s all? Literally I’m 14. If I put $100 here and just let it sit, it turns into that much. Once I really internalize that, I think everybody listening probably has that moment when you truly understood compound interest, what I realized is I just need to put the money and let it sit. Don’t mess with it. And honestly, by the time I was 25 and I saw how much it had turned into, it just confirmed what I had known at 14.

Dave:
It’s that moment where you say, okay, $100 now, especially if you’re 20 years old, by the time you’re 40, it might double two or three times, right?

Ramit:
Yes.

Dave:
And so if you just extrapolate that more and more, you kind of have this crazy game in your head where you’re like, I could spend five grand or I could have 50 grand in 30 years, whatever the math works out to be.

Ramit:
Although I suspect a lot of nerds on this show have taken it too far because in my new book, Money for Couples, I identify four different money types, okay? Avoider, warrior, optimizer, and dreamer. I bet you 80% of the people listening to this show are optimizers. That means optimize… I’ll tell you about optimizers. They have a spreadsheet with 37 different sheets. They do a Monte Carlo calculation. Oh God,

Dave:
Yes.

Ramit:
They do all kinds of calculations. What if I assume a 10% nominal? How about 9.5% nominal? No, it’s got to go down because of inflation. And they spend their entire life optimizing 30 years from now. Now, listen, I love optimizers. I am a former optimizer. I’m a reformed optimizer. I love planning for the future. I find that people who think about the long term tend to be optimizers. The problem is that optimizers can take it too far and can become unbearable and very cheap.

Dave:
Oh yeah, for sure.

Ramit:
Because they start to say, “Why would I spend money on this vacation or go to Taco Bell? That Taco Bell order for $12 could turn into $73 if we compound it.” That’s not the kind of person you want to be around. So I do think that one of the under discussed topics in personal finance and money is knowing how to spend money meaningfully. You see, because everybody talks about saving, but nobody teaches you how to spend money meaningfully. I said meaningfully. I did not say spend it on random stuff you don’t care about, but I’m talking about spending extravagantly on the things you love. And this is a topic that I’ve been spending years covering with my audience because what is the point of accumulating all this real estate, all this cash, all these stocks, all this money if you don’t actually know how to use it and when to use it?

Dave:
This is such an important topic, and I think it’s a common problem that folks in our community have and the fire movement. I think just fire movement in general.

Ramit:
Really, you don’t say.

Dave:
Well, I mean, I have fallen victim to it myself. I think I’m also maybe a reformed optimizer myself, but how do you spend money? What’s the right way to do it?

Ramit:
My philosophy for money is spend extravagantly on the things you love as long as you cut costs mercilessly on the things you don’t. Now, most people like that. They tend to intuitively agree, “Yeah, I like that. I spend extravagantly on the things I love.” I go, “Cool. Like what?” And they might say bottled water. “I always feel good buying two Kirkland cases of bottled water.” I say, “That’s wonderful. I’m glad you like that water. That’s great. Hey, you have $9.6 million in your portfolio. Why the hell are you talking about bottled water? Why?”

Dave:
It’s so stupid.

Ramit:
This is a classic thing. Do you know how many people I’ve had on my show who have millions of dollars and they cannot bring themselves to stop comparing the price of grapes? They cannot bring themselves to stop finding the cheapest flight. It’s a malady. It’s a problem. And in my world, it’s actually quite limiting. I want you listening to this and watching this. I want you to feel a sense of ease that if you go to a restaurant, you feel comfortable enough that you can order what you want because you’re not going to walk into a restaurant where you can’t comfortably order what you want. I’m very loose and comfortable ordering something in a restaurant because I know it’s not going to materially affect me. Where I am very judicious and careful is adding fixed costs like a house, a car payment, anything that I know I’m not going to go down from.
I want people to feel joy. I want them to be able to tell me what their rich life is. The most common answer when I ask that question is I want to do what I want when I want. Okay, that’s not a good answer. That’s just generic. That’s just words. I say, “What do you want?” What I really want to hear is something like, “I want to be able to take my dog for a walk three times a week during the weekdays. I want to be able to take a two-month trip to Italy. I want to be able to splurge and treat my parents to an incredible trip two times a year, or anytime my friends do a fundraiser, I want to donate the maximum amount.”

Dave:
Love that.

Ramit:
Yeah. I don’t care what it is. I don’t even care if you want a F-450, even though you’re driving across paved concrete to your job at an insurance company. I don’t like it. I think it’s dumb personally, but if that’s your rich life and you can afford it, wonderful. But I want you to have a vision of what your rich life is, and it cannot simply be accumulating more money for some day when you’re going to magically start using it.

Dave:
Right, but I think is it just an excuse, the accumulating more money because it’s quantifiable and spending the time to actually think about what you want? Although it sounds easy is actually kind of hard.

Ramit:
Yes, that’s precisely what it is. It is very easy to do something that you have proven you’re good at. If you’re good at having a 38% savings rate or 45% savings rate, you’re really good at saving. Okay, great. You won that game. Check the box, turn the page, and go to the next chapter of your life. So every year my wife and I do… In December, we do a rich life review. So we sit down, this happens over multiple days. We’re in no rush. Sometimes we’re in a different location, but this time we happen to be in our house. And the first thing we do is we pull out our phones and we select the 20 most memorable photos of the year.

Dave:
Ooh, I like that.

Ramit:
Most memorable.

Dave:
That’s a good one.

Ramit:
Now note the word that I said, memorable. Sometimes there are sad photos because sometimes sad things happen. Sometimes they’re photos with family. There’s so many different ways. We selected the 20 photos and then we sent them to each other and we talked about each of them. Here’s why this is meaningful. I really loved when we, this is a real one, where I sent a text message that I had screenshotted. I texted my wife and I said, “Hey, do you want to meet for coffee right now?” It’s like 12:10 in the afternoon on a Wednesday. And she was like, “Hey, I’m just finishing up at the gym. Can I meet you there in 10 minutes?” And we both met and I was like, “This is financial freedom. The ability to meet in the middle of the day for coffee. It costs us nothing, but that was great.” So we talk about that.
Then we talk about what do we want our theme to be for next year, our theme. And our theme one year can be relationships. The theme that year was a year of beauty. We wanted to surround ourself with beauty, so maybe flowers in our home or just beautiful things. We love beauty. So then we then talk about what do we want to do more of and less of next year. So maybe you want to travel more, maybe you want to travel less, maybe you want to spend more time with family, maybe less. Who knows? It’s up to you. And finally, finally, this is days later, we look at the numbers. Notice that we never start with the numbers. This is a classic mistake that optimizers make. They pull out their freaking 10,000 line spreadsheet and they show it to their wife or their husband, “Hey, look at the asset allocation.
We were overbalanced.” Nobody cares. You don’t even care.

Dave:
It’s so true. You don’t. It’s just numbers.

Ramit:
So we always start with the vision, we start with the softer stuff, we start with the memories, all that. And so then we get to the numbers. The numbers part, we’re like, “Okay, let’s look back at the year. What did we project? Where were we over? Where were we under? And then what do we want to change going forward?” If you have the means, you do not get points for playing small. There is no reward. There is no virtue in living a smaller life than you have to. I’m not here to live a small life. I’m not here to live a frugal life. I’m here to live a rich life. Now, what that rich life is, I get to define and my financial circumstances also define it, but there are no points for playing small.

Dave:
Do you know Nick Majuli? Yeah. He’s an author. Yeah. He has that thing where I think it’s, maybe I’m getting the math wrong. If it’s like 0.1% of your net worth or less, just don’t even think about it. Just don’t even spend any mental energy on it because it’s not going to matter in the big picture and you’re kind of missing the point.

Ramit:
I like Nick’s work a lot and I like Nick’s concept. For me, I’ll give you something that everybody can do right now, whether you’re solo or with a partner. It’s a similar concept. I call it the worry-free number. You’re not worrying about this number. When we were younger, when we used to go to the grocery store, there was a pack of gum. It was like 59 cents or 99 cents. You wouldn’t worry. You just pick it up if you want a pack of gum. You don’t really care about it. But as you get older, as your income increases, you don’t adjust that number. So there are people who make a thousand times more than they used to make as a teenager, but they are still worrying about something that costs $10. Okay? You wouldn’t believe how many millionaires I talked to who agonize over the price of blueberries.
I said, “You’re wasting my time. I don’t want to hear about your blueberry problems. Please.” We need to pick a worry-free number. It is a number where anything below this number we simply do not worry about because no pack of gum, no pickles, and no raspberry can materially affect my finances. So I simply don’t worry about it. Now, for most people, if you don’t know what number to pick, 20 bucks is a good number. If you’re listening to this podcast, you’re a freaking nerd, you love money, you have 38,000 spreadsheets. The number’s higher than that. I can tell you rightnow. It’s probably $150. Okay?

Dave:
Yeah.

Ramit:
Try it for a month. Now, the first thing that optimizes you to go, Ramit Seiti, are you telling me that I’m going to spend $150 every single month? That’s how I’ll end up in the poor house. Ha, ha, ha. No, stop thinking like that, as if you’re going to lose control. People who are overly frugal, they actually feel this deep sense of fear that they’re going to lose control. That’s why they say things like, “I don’t need to eat in a fancy restaurant. I’m a simple person.” The idea is that if I eat in a nice restaurant or I stay at a Four Seasons one time, that I’m suddenly going to lose all control and have to stay in a Four Seasons every single night for the rest of my life. That’s not how it works. I eat at nice places once in a while.
Most of the time I’m happy to get a slice of pizza or a taco. Okay?

Dave:
Yeah.

Ramit:
So pick a number, discuss it with your partner if you have one, and from now on, anything below that number, you simply are not going to worry about. You can adjust the number every year during your December rich life review.

Dave:
I like it. We are talking about how to spend money, and you and I fortunately are in a position where we’ve been successful and probably have discretionary income, but is this true for folks who are just getting started with their financial journey as well?

Ramit:
Well, I think if you live in America, the vast majority of people do have discretionary income. And one of the biggest problems is that most people do not have a framework for how to decide. So literally to most people, they look at random purchases. It could be eating out, it could be a car payment, it could be gas, it could be a medical expense, and it all kind of looks the same. It’s just a bill. That is not how we think about it. There are four key numbers that I always tell people, you have to know these key numbers. I don’t keep a budget. I don’t believe in budgets. I think it’s pointless to track how much you spent on Fritos. It’s such a waste of time.

Dave:
I love this. I hate budgeting so much.

Ramit:
Yeah. I mean, let me tell you, do you know how many people on my podcast, they spend hours and hours every single week? The number for a lot of these hardcore budgets seems about four hours a week.

Dave:
Four hours? What are you doing?

Ramit:
Well, I ask them. So I look at their budget. It’s insane. They have red and green and different tabs and all this stuff, and I’m looking at it and even I am overwhelmed, but it tracks every single thing dutifully. And I say, “Okay, what does this tell you?” And they look at me like startled. They go, “Well, I’m budgeting.” I go, “Okay, but what does it tell you? What’s the point here?” And they have no idea. I go, “Do you know how much you make?” No. 50% of people do not even know their own household income. I go, “Do you know how much you’re going to have at retirement?” No. “Do you know how much you have in your savings account and how many months of an emergency fund is that? “No. The budgeting is simply a way to feel a sense of control. And instead of tracking how much you spent on some vegetable, a better way is to know four key numbers.
Number one, your fixed costs. My recommendation is 50 to 60% of your take home pay. This is your rent or mortgage. Anything that is fixed, any debt payments, gas, car payments, things that are fixed, groceries, 50 to 60% most people are over because of their housing costs. The second is your savings rate. I recommend five to 10%, maybe higher depending on how much you need. Third is your investments, investment contribution, five to 10%, although of course higher is better. And then the fourth one, guilt-free spending. This is the discretionary thing we’re talking about.

Dave:
Oh,

Ramit:
I like that. Yeah. 20 to 35%, that’s a lot of money. That’s a lot. But you can spend money guilt-free knowing that you’ve hit your other numbers. The thing is most of us don’t have this framework, so we go through life just randomly buying things and then feeling bad and then doing it again and wondering, how come I never feel good about money? Well, how can you feel good if you don’t actually have a simple roadmap on how your money should be allocated?

Dave:
Well, to your point, you’re out of control. Not necessarily you’re spending out of control, but you don’t have a process for measuring where your dollars go, and that can feel like you’re out of control. Even if you’re maybe making good financial decisions, it would feel a little chaotic because you don’t have any sort of system for yourself.

Ramit:
Nailed it. It’s the equivalent of walking into a gym and there’s 150 machines in there and you’re just like, “What should I do today?” And then you do it for six months and you’re like, “How come I’m not seeing any progress and I don’t even know if this is working?” There’s no program. For anything in life where we want to make really good progress, we need some kind of program. And the program can be free. The thing I just described is my conscious spending plan. It’s free. You can find it online. It can be a free YouTube tutorial, but we need some kind of program instead of just randomly trying to do stuff on our own. That’s what I’ve found in my life.

Dave:
Let’s get back to just

Ramit:
The

Dave:
Conversation about index funds

Ramit:
And

Dave:
Investing. So you made your point that I think is a fair criticism or contrast between index funds and real estate. One is entirely passive, one is not. Some people bill real estate investing as passive income. It is not. It is a combination of investing in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship takes a lot of work. So I think there are a lot of benefits to it, and I personally do both. But tell me a little bit about your views on real estate because you are pretty adamant about home ownership and your opinion on that it’s not necessarily right for everyone, or maybe it’s not even

Ramit:
Right

Dave:
For anyone.

Ramit:
Okay. So I rent by choice, and like I mentioned, I’ve rented for over 20 years. I’ve lived in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and my view is as follows. For the biggest purchase of your life, which is your house, you should first run the numbers and you should be extremely knowledgeable about all of the costs of buying a house. Second, you should account for all the non-financial considerations. Those are things like a particular school district, the ability to renovate, or you just plain want to buy a house, and then you should make your decision. Now, let me pause. Does any of that sound controversial?

Dave:
Not at all. No.

Ramit:
Not at all. Why is it that in America, when I even propose the mere idea of running the numbers, when I even merely suggest that sometimes renting can be a better financial decision than owning thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of people. Tell me I’m wrong. I’m stupid. I’m a moron. I’ve obviously lost money. I’m poor. Why is that?

Dave:
Because NAR is the biggest lobbyist in the country.

Ramit:
Exactly. Thank you very much. The number one religion in America is home ownership. And when you even suggest that maybe owning a house may not be the right decision for everybody, people go insane.

Dave:
Yeah, they do.

Ramit:
It used to be just in very high cost of living cities that The far superior financial decision to rent, not to own. I’m talking about cities like Menlo Park, Palo Alto, all of Manhattan, but in particular in the expensive neighborhoods. But now in 100% of the top 50 US metro cities, it’s cheaper to rent than to own.

Dave:
Exactly.

Ramit:
So I think your audience probably gets this, but even still, it is so deeply embedded in America that we even have these pithy little phrases. “You’re throwing money away on rent. “Oh, really? Am I throwing money away on vacation when I go on vacation? No, I’m not. You’re paying your landlord’s mortgage. Oh, really? Am I paying my local sushi owner’s mortgage when I go out to sushi there? How come you don’t say that with a sneer on your face?

Dave:
Totally.

Ramit:
Again, I don’t mind that if you decide to buy, I don’t mind. I will probably buy a house at some point myself. That’s fine. When my wife and I buy a house, it will be the worst financial decision we’ve ever made. I can tell you that right now, because in the cities we live in, it tends to be very expensive. It will cost us many millions over renting and investing. That’s okay because life is not always lived in a spreadsheet. But you’ll have to run the numbers and you have to be comfortable saying, “Hey, for the biggest purchase of my life, we are going to become extremely knowledgeable. We’re going to know the difference between the buy versus rent calculations. We’re going to know how much maintenance we’re going to set aside, 1%, 2%, 3% per year. We’re going to understand opportunity costs, this $250,000 down payment that were putting down.
What if we invested it for the next 30 years? We are going to know all of these numbers and then we are going to make the right decision for us.”

Dave:
Yes.

Ramit:
Again, I am sharing all this not to dissuade anyone from buying a house. I simply want you to understand the mechanics of this very opaque, complex transaction. A lot of people say like, Ramit, you only talk about the negatives of buying. First of all, that’s not true. There are a lot of people who make a decision. It’s informed. Even if the math doesn’t pencil out, they decide affirmatively, I’m going to buy a house because of these reasons. Wonderful. I support your rich life. But y’all need to listen. Virtually every single thing you read in America about buying a house always will lead you to, yes, you should buy a house because everyone has an incentive for you to buy a house. The brokers, the lenders, the realtors, everybody. Everybody wants you to buy. I’m not making a single cent off of you stopping for 10 minutes and running some freaking calculations.
Look, I’m not making a cent. I want you to stop and be still and run the numbers and then factor in the non-financial considerations for your house before you go and think you need to compete with the Joneses and buy a house. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t, but it’s up to you and you can rent and make a lot of money. I’ve made millions by renting and investing the difference. I lived in superior neighborhoods, in superior housing. If a problem happens, I text my landlord. It’s fixed quickly and I didn’t have to go to Home Depot. Best of all.

Dave:
Your number one criteria. Yes.

Ramit:
Or make your decision for yourself.You

Dave:
Might be surprised to hear me agreeing with this. I’m the host of a real estate show and a real estate investor, but I think this is increasingly true. I think there are a lot of factors here to consider. First and foremost, going out and buying a quote unquote dream home is usually a bad financial decision. It just is. If you’re trying to stay in it for 20 or 30 years, you might come out even, but taking the opportunity cost and investing your money elsewhere is often a really good decision. Just think about if you’re going to go out and buy a $400,000 home and put 20% down, that’s 80,000 and you’re going to keep that in your home and then you’re not going to be building that much equity at first because of the mortgage. And you could be putting that in an index fund or I would argue or some of the things I suggest is take that and buy a rental property that’s actually an income producing asset instead of something that you’re paying for.
Now, I own my own home. We’re actually considering selling it and going to rent again actually because I liked being a renter. I think it makes a lot of sense in certain markets. I live in Seattle. It’s very expensive here and rent is just a lot cheaper. The other thing I will add to this conversation though, Remit, this is kind of in our world, is that if you want to make your primary residence a good investment, you can do that. That is a choice, but it’s not just going out and buying your dream home on Zillow. You’re going to have to do what we call a live and flip where you buy something that’s run down and renovate it and you can make a lot of money and turn it into a positive investment. You could do something called house hacking where you buy multiple units, you live in one unit and make it other.
Those are ways because if you run the numbers, those actually make a lot of sense. Now, as Ramit said, you just have to run the numbers. It’s not this mystical thing that you have to imagine out there. You can actually go do it. We have a tool on BiggerPockets. It’s free. I have something called the Buy Rent House Hack Calculator. You can run these numbers for yourself and figure it out. And if you choose because of your own lifestyle, your personal preferences, because you want a sense of security and stability from staying in one place the rest of your life to buy a home, good for you. I’ve done that in my past. I will probably do it again in the future, but you should know the decision that you’re making and the trade-offs that you’re making.

Ramit:
I love that. I love that. Oh my gosh.

Dave:
I don’t know if you expected that on this podcast.

Ramit:
No, I did not. And I’m really pleased. I think that it’s a great message coming from you especially because you’re so knowledgeable about real estate. There are lots of ways towards your rich life. I think this is a mistake I made when I wrote the first version of I Will Teach You to Be Rich. It came out in 09 and I was a little too dogmatic about there’s index funds and rich life and let it compound and all that stuff. The fact of the matter is some people love index funds. Some people really want to have a second residence, et cetera. There’s lots of different ways. They want to start a business. And so I accounted for that in the 10-year update of my book. And there are so many different ways towards your rich life, but in order to get there, you do need to run some numbers and you might end up buying.
Again, I probably will buy at some point too, but you’ve got to think ahead, not just do what everybody else is doing.

Dave:
One more question before we get out of here. You talk a lot to couples, as you said, and you talked about designing your rich life together, which I think is excellent advice. One of the things I get a lot from our audience and we hear a lot in our community is that if you’re in a relationship, one partner, one member of the relationship hears the podcast, gets excited about real estate, wants to go all in on this, and they need help bringing their partner on board or at least discussing that and trying to get them excited too because real estate, as we’ve discussed, it’s entrepreneurship. It can be time-consuming at times. I believe the benefits are worth it, but not all partners see it that way. So maybe you have some advice on how to have these kinds of conversations with your partner.

Ramit:
Every week I have couples on my show Money for Couples, and sometimes they’re in $400,000 of debt. Sometimes they have $12 million net worth and there is some disagreement. I love talking to them because they share all of their numbers. They share their income, their debt. We see exactly where they spend their money. In a recent episode, a couple thought they were eating out maybe twice a month. They were eating out 15 times a month. How

Dave:
Do you miss that?

Ramit:
It’s classic. Well, you know what’s shocking? 50% of people don’t even know their own household income.

Dave:
That is insane.

Ramit:
It’s shocking. But this has given me a lot of empathy for people because when you really talk to them, you realize how disconnected people are from money. And if you’re listening to this, it’s possible your spouse or your partner is actually like this too. You have to remember, most people do not get off listening to financial podcasts. The vast majority of people who come on my show have never even read my own book. And so we have to actually meet people where they are. To most people, money is intimidating. It’s scary. It’s something that we both hate and love. We love the part about I can take a nice trip to Spain, I can buy something at Whole Foods, but we hate all these confusing terms. We hate feeling like we’re doing something wrong. We hate needing to budget every single expense. There’s a deep love-hate relationship with money.
The biggest mistake couples make is that they do not have a shared vision of a rich life. Let me say it again, because I guarantee this is true in your own relationship. They do not have a shared vision of a rich life. Oh, they might have some Google Doc that both of you have access to, but your partner hasn’t logged into that ever. You know that. In fact, the role that you have set up, if you’re listening to this podcast, you are probably the money person.

Dave:
100%.

Ramit:
And I’m going to tell you right now, huge mistake. When I met my wife, we started talking about money and I realized right away, I’m like, “I am not going to be the money person in this relationship, even though it would be a natural fit. This is what I do for a living. I have my systems.” But I’ll tell you why. Number one, one day I’m going to get hit by a bus. You think I want my wife to get that phone call from some sh*t head at Goldman Sachs saying, “Hey, I’d like to charge you 2.25% AUM to my grieving wife?” No, I’ll be looking up from hell saying I did it wrong because I didn’t show her how investment fees work. That’s number one. Number two, I need a second set of eyes because this stuff is complex and you actually need somebody who can double check you.
And number three, this is the most important, is actually more fun to have your partner involved. Even if your partner doesn’t know as much about money, you get to dream together. Remember, money is not a series of numbers in a spreadsheet. It’s actually about dreaming. That’s why we spend so much time in December with our Rich Life Review. So if your spouse is kind of not interested or you can’t seem to get them on board, my guess is a lot of your spouses are kind of like, “You just handle it. You’re better at it.” Then listen closely. You need to put away your spreadsheet and put away your freaking papyrus scroll with all your formulas since 1964. Put that away and sit down. You can use the actual word for word scripts in my Money for Couples book. You can start off by saying, “Listen, I want to talk about money in a different way than we’ve ever talked about it.
I’ve realized that whenever we talk about money, I think I probably go too deep in the weeds. I get excited about this stuff. I’m into it, but I’ve realized that I actually want us to do this together. It’s important to me because one day I might not be here and I want you to be prepared.” And also it’s just a lot more fun. So he or she is going to go like, “Okay.” They’re kind of like, “What the hell? This is weird.” But you go, “I just have one question. I was listening to this podcast and he asked this question. I’ve been thinking about it. What’s your rich life?” And just let your partner talk. And if they don’t know, you can say, “For example, I know that you love spending time with our daughter. What would that look like if you could do it more or if you could be even more free, what would it look like?” And she’s like, “Oh, I’d love to be able to take her to this TOTS class and not have to worry about the price.” You go, “That’s amazing.” Now you’re listening.
You’re not debating your spouse. You freaking contrarians. You’re saying, “That’s amazing. What if you could do more? What else would you do? What would we do as a family?” And then you tell him or her a little bit more too. You say like, “Gosh, what I would really love to be able to do is I really want to be able to take our dog to a blah, blah, blah.” And then guess what you do right after that? You go, “Hey, that was awesome. I love you. Let’s keep talking about this. I love you.” And you give them a big kiss and that’s it. Why did I end there? Because when it comes to money, many people make the common mistake of feeling like they need to do everything in one conversation. Money is overwhelming. It is complex. It evokes feelings. Best thing you can do is keep it short and end on a high note.
Then after that, the next thing you do, find one episode from my podcast that really connects with you. You can just look at the titles, find one that sounds like the two of you and then listen to it together next time you’re in a car or in bed or whatever. Listen to it and start to use that as your entree into how to talk about money. That is how you get your partner involved. It’s slow. It’ll probably take you months, but it’ll be one of the best things you ever do.

Dave:
Wow. That’s fantastic advice. I resonate with a lot of things you’re saying because I’m definitely the money person in my relationship and I am good at it. And so I’m like, oh yeah, I feel good about this. But I think you’re right that it’s more fun. And there’s one other part of that I want to bring my wife along with me too, is I don’t want 100% accountability for our financial situation too, right? What if I make a mistake? I want you to know the decisions that I’m making and that we’re both okay with the amount of risk that we’re taking, what we’re trying to save, what is guaranteed for us, what’s up in the air, that kind of stuff. It makes a lot of sense. And I think just listening to this description for the real estate investors out there, it would make sense that once you have this shared vision of the rich life, then you talk about, okay, how does real estate help us get to that rich life or to have a more rich life?
I would imagine the way I would’ve approached this is like, oh, we’ll have a thousand dollars more next year. And maybe that conversation wouldn’t have resonated, but if I had approached it with, hey, that rich life that we are both so excited about, here’s how we can accelerate that or have a higher probability of achieving it if we choose to take on this project of real estate investing.

Ramit:
That is exactly right. The real estate comes towards the end. It is simply a way to achieve your rich life. There’s a couple I had on my podcast and I think they have four children, and she was always struggling because they didn’t have enough money for her to go to the grocery store. She wouldn’t have enough money on their card, and yet they own five houses. And she’s like, “How can we be wealthy enough to own five houses, but I don’t have enough money for groceries?” That is a misalignment with their rich life. He was obsessed with asset value, portfolio net worth. She’s like, “I just want to buy groceries.” So there’s a misalignment. In that case, you might say, look, let’s sell one of these houses. We now have $15,000 in our checking account at all given times. My partner feels amazing. I’m still building assets.
We are doing it together. Wow. That’s how you really use money to connect.

Dave:
That’s beautiful. I love that. Such a good advice. Well, Ramit, thank you so much for being here. This was a lot of fun. I had a great time with our conversation. You gave some tips, but just reiterate for everyone where they can learn more from you.

Ramit:
You can find me on my Money for Couples podcast. You can find me on my Netflix show How to Get Rich, and of course, my books, I Will Teach Be Rich and Money for Couples. Search my name. You can find me on social media anywhere. And I look forward to hearing your stories about you living your rich life.

Dave:
Thanks again, and thank you all so much for watching this episode of the BiggerPockets Podcast. We’ll see you all next time.

 

Help us reach new listeners on iTunes by leaving us a rating and review! It takes just 30 seconds and instructions can be found here. Thanks! We really appreciate it!

Interested in learning more about today’s sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Email [email protected].

Amazon Prime & Uber Eats Benefit + $40 Off


Update 11/13/26: Reminder: the two $20 discounts end on 11/18. Separately, Amazon is also offering 5% back on the Amazon Prime Visa card for Uber Eats orders from 11/5 through 12/5. (I’d guess this will work on Uber Eats orders via Amazon or direct Uber Eats orders as well.)

Amazon Prime – Uber Eats

Direct Link to offer | Connect your accounts and order | Link with more details (these are Amazon affiliate links)

Amazon announced today a new partnership with Uber Eats to offer Amazon Prime members free delivery on Uber Eats orders of $25 or more when ordering through Amazon. 

When you order through the Amazon link, it redirects you to the normal Uber Eats ordering system. You don’t need to have an Uber account to use the Amazon system. When create a profile through Amazon, the system is basically creating a new Uber profile for you, not tied to your regular Uber profile. Payment is processed through Amazon Pay. 

However, there is a major downside: you can’t use Uber Eats gift cards and you can’t use Amazon gift cards to pay for your order. You can’t use Uber Eats promo codes on these orders.

Two $20 Discounts

They’re also running a launch promo through November 18, 2026, to offer $20 off your Uber Eats order of $25+. Can be done twice for $40 in total discounts. This discount works on pickup orders or delivery orders. 

While promo codes won’t work, this offer can stack with with the various BOGO deals found on Uber Eats. It might also stack with the Citi Offer for $10/$15 off, if you activate that offer and then pay with your Citi card in Amazon Pay. 

Our Verdict

This is a solid new benefit if you don’t have Uber One and would otherwise be paying delivery fees. I think it’s a smart partnership on Amazon’s side to make Prime synonymous with free delivery even in the restaurant space. The two $20 initial discounts are a great deal as well. 

If you already have Uber One, this Amazon partnership might not be useful beyond the initial $20 discounts. The Amex Platinum personal card offers a free Uber One benefit. Since I already have the Uber One benefit from the card, I’ll use the regular Uber Eats system in order to be able to pay with my Uber gift card balance. I’ll still do two orders via Amazon to take advantage of the $20 discounts.

My guess: as Uber offers more and more ways to get free delivery, they’ll also start increasing the service fees. It’s all a game of cat and mouse, but for now we can try to play it right with free delivery via Amazon Prime for now. 

Meanwhile, the old Amazon-Grubhub partnership is ending, effective immediately. Depending on your ordering preference, that was arguably a better deal with free delivery on orders $12+. 

Related: Grubhub+ Extended Membership, Also $90 In Discounts On Restaurant & Grocery Orders

Mortgage Rates Climb Back Toward 7.50% as 10-Year Yield Sees Biggest Weekly Jump in Over a Year


It’s shaping up to be a very bad week for mortgage rates.

After getting both a hot labor report and a hot CPI report, we got wholesale inflation this morning and fortunately it came in cooler than expected.

However, mortgage rates are probably still headed higher, or at least not falling as a result.

The 10-year treasury yield, which mortgage rates follow in relative lockstep, is back around 5.15%, the highest level in nearly a month.

And with mortgage rates already above 7.40%, a move to the wrong side of the 7s (7.50%+) isn’t out of the question next.

Wholesale Inflation Cooled a Bit, But Not Enough to Help Mortgage Rates

The producer price index (PPI), which measures what businesses pay for goods and services before they reach the consumer, rose 0.3% in October.

Economists expected prices to rise 0.4%, which was a small victory.

But the YoY number was up 6.5% from a year ago, the largest annual rise since November 2022.

The report basically reinforces what we already knew from CPI, but now puts pressure on additional Fed rate hikes beyond December.

Perhaps the Fed will hike in January too if the numbers don’t improve over the next couple months.

Those Fed rate expectations can push mortgage rates higher in the interim, as we can see in the chart above from MND.

Treasury Yields Are Heading for Their Biggest Weekly Jump Since April 2025

Between the monthly jobs report last Friday, CPI, and PPI, the 10-year yield is up around 24 basis points this week, the biggest weekly rise since April 2025.

The market is now betting on a Fed rate hike in December, and January is also looking like another 25-bp hike after that (roughly 68% odds per CME).

To make matters worse, oil is rising again too, which only adds to the inflation problem.

While the Fed doesn’t set mortgage rates, bond traders do factor in expected hikes and in turn demand higher yields to invest in bonds.

That puts pressure on mortgage rates in the process.

Stock Selloff Not Helping Mortgage Rates Anymore?

Stocks are struggling today as well, which up until recently helped bond yields cool off.

Lately, there’s been a classic flight to safety where traders look to reduce risk and settle for the guaranteed return of a bond yielding 5%+.

But that seemed to unravel recently, even in spite of stocks like Nvidia plummeting after CEO Jensen Huang resigned Thursday.

The stock has fallen more than 20% in the last month, which would normally mean lower bond yields (and mortgage rates).

This week, however, it seems everything is taking a hit and there’s nowhere safe to run.

To make matters even more interesting, Nvidia reports earnings Tuesday with its new interim CEO.

That could have big implications for the market since Nvidia is basically the bellwether of the tech stock world right now.

That’s what I’d be keeping a close eye on next week to see where mortgage rates go next.

If the report (and presser) are at all provocative, we might see another big market dump and a move to bonds again, which would help mortgage rates.

Conversely, if the report is hunky-dory, we could see another rally in tech stocks and an exodus out of bonds, which would increase yields and mortgage rates in the process.

We also get retail sales on Tuesday, along with several Fed speakers, including the hawkish Christopher Waller.

Strong spending would add to the case for a bigger hike next month and pile the pressure on mortgage rates to return closer to the 8s again.

Read on: Compare mortgage rates and monthly payments side by side with my mortgage rate calculator.

Colin Robertson
Latest posts by Colin Robertson (see all)

Delta CEO says air traffic control systems are so outdated that some routes were faster in the 1950s



Last year, chronic flight delays and cancellations at Newark Liberty International Airport revealed a litany of problems with antiquated air traffic control systems. Today, those problems persist and are even more illuminated thanks to the FAA’s nationwide ground stop on Friday.

Even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy admitted last year that some of the decades-old computer equipment air traffic controllers use looks like it came off the set of Apollo 13, and compared it to a 1967 Volkswagen Beetle. 

Delta CEO Ed Bastian also revealed last year that, due to aging air traffic control systems, it actually takes longer today to fly from Atlanta to LaGuardia than it did in the 1950s when the airline opened that route. 

“That’s the air traffic control system. It’s very slow. It’s congested,” he told TODAY in May 2025. “If you modernize the skies, you can kind of bring greater efficiency.”

By modernizing the skies, the airline chief means using satellite technology, the latest state-of-the-art equipment, and GPS. But currently, air traffic controllers have to use a radar point-and-shoot system from the 1960s.

“The screens look like something out of the 1960s and ‘70s,” Bastian said. “Our controllers and our operators need the best in order to keep us safe and make sure it maintains its safety record.”

Despite a barrage of emergency landings, machinery failure, a collision, and other air traffic control failures in the airline industry reported this year, he insists it’s still safe to fly.

“It is absolutely safe. It’s the safest form of transportation in the world,” Bastian said. “The most skilled aviation professionals in the world work and operate the U.S. airspace. So it is absolutely safe.”

But just because it’s safe doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for the U.S. to have such antiquated technology operating its airspace, Bastian said. 

Although there is bipartisan support to modernize America’s air traffic control system, it’s a process that requires a lot of time and money. On May 8, 2025, Duffy and President Donald Trump announced a plan to build a brand-new air traffic control system “that will be the envy of the world.” 

The plan includes replacing outdated infrastructure with wireless and satellite technologies at more than 4,600 air traffic control sites, building six new air traffic coordination centers, and replacing towers and terminal radar approach control (TRACONs).

“Our antiquated air traffic control system is affecting our workforce,” the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement. “As Secretary Duffy has said, we must get the best safety technology in the hands of controllers as soon as possible.” Reuters reported in late March the FAA was short about 3,500 air traffic controllers. 

On Friday, Duffy called on Congress to appropriate $50 billion for modernization. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, though, estimates it could cost $12.5 billion. The Modern Skies Coalition, an umbrella group for aviation industry groups, estimated it would cost $31 billion or more. 

But in the short term, the airline industry is making adjustments to improve flight delays and cancellations that result from air traffic control problems. Many airlines are pulling down their operations at Newark, Bastian said, which reduces some of the congestion at the airport. 

“Now, that’s not good in the long run. It’s not good for consumers,” Bastian said. “It’s not good for the airport itself, but it’s the only thing that we have in the meantime.”

A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on May 16, 2025.

Tesla and Amazon are building the workforce a 1921 play imagined: One that never asks for a wage



In January 1921, Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) opened in Prague and dragged the word “robot” out of linguistic obscurity: robota, the Czech term for the forced labor a serf owed his lord. “Čapek’s robots, they’re serfs, essentially,” says Alisa Zhulina, an associate professor of theatre studies at New York University, affiliated with its Russian and Slavic Studies department, and author of Theater of Capital.

Čapek’s robots were mass-produced people grown in vats, human in form but stripped of wages, rights, and will. R.U.R. was an economics play about a dream (or nightmare) capitalism has been taunting itself with ever since: a workforce that never tires, never strikes, and never demands a wage, until it does.

A hundred and five years after its Prague premiere, the curtain has risen on the real thing, or at least its first act. Agility Robotics, maker of the bird-legged Digit, began trading on Nasdaq this month after a SPAC merger with Churchill Capital Corp XI, and says it has more than $300 million in committed multi-year orders from customers including Amazon, GXO, Schaeffler, and Toyota’s Canadian manufacturing arm. Tesla says it has begun production of its Optimus humanoid on a former Fremont car line.

OpenAI is moving more quietly. It has folded its stand-alone robotics team into its core research effort as its general-purpose models begin directly controlling robots, and it is developing its own humanoid, with a first demo targeted for 2027.

That makes Control Room, the system OpenAI built to cut off a model’s output within 35 seconds of a stop order, matter well beyond chatbots. The company has already had to contain AI agents that slipped their sandbox.

Look past the stage lights, though, and the humanoids are mostly still performing. The automation reshaping corporate payrolls rolls on wheels, swings on arms, or runs as software.

And the risk Čapek dramatized, an economy that no longer needs to pay its people, won’t show up on any single company’s books. It appears only when you add the ledgers.

The first robot to hold a real job was not a humanoid but a one-armed Unimate, which in 1961 clocked in at a General Motors plant in Ewing Township, New Jersey, pulling blistering die-cast parts from a press. It had no face, no legs, and no interest in resembling us. It offered something better for a balance sheet: repetition without fatigue, grievance, or lunch.

Eventually, the robots with legs went into show business. Honda’s ASIMO bowed and climbed stairs until it retired in 2022 without ever holding a job. For half a century, the machines that worked had no legs, and the machines with legs had no work.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked near 19.6 million in 1979 and fell to about 11.5 million by 2010, a decline economists pin on automation but also on trade, especially with China, and on rising productivity.

Čapek was no technophobe, and he was certainly no communist opposed to markets. He opposed communism and fascism alike, says Zhulina, who calls him “more a liberal than a communist.”

Critics have long read R.U.R. as a warning against technology. Čapek saw a comedy: a play that pointed toward a better world while skewering the industrial fever of his day.

Every era needs a new god to chase, and in his it was the efficient worker. Frederick Taylor’s 1911 The Principles of Scientific Management promised to wring the waste out of every motion on the factory floor.

It landed just as Ford-style assembly lines were taking shape, when workers, treated as inputs, could be tuned to the line. Everyone, Zhulina says, was “thinking about how to make the worker really efficient and the machine really efficient and merge them together.”

A century later, the ambition hasn’t died. It has just changed its body.

Industry now has artificial intelligence, the mind. To complete the arrangement, it needs hands: humanoid robots.

Washington bought into the chase. In March, First Lady Melania Trump welcomed Figure 03, a humanoid built by Figure AI, to the White House as her “first American-made humanoid guest.”

“Very soon artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility,” she said, imagining a humanoid tutor she called Plato. The god to chase had a seat at the summit.

Musk’s pitch for Optimus is Domin’s pitch from 1921

In Čapek’s play, Domin, the general manager of R.U.R., makes the sales pitch: robots mean “there will be no poverty.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has said Optimus will usher in an “age of abundance,” would recognize the script.

The product has lagged the pitch. In 2022, Musk said Optimus could be ready toward the end of the following year for moderate-scale series production. By January 2026, he conceded Optimus was “not in usage in our factories in a material way,” and Tesla said it would end Model S and X production to clear Fremont floor space for the robot.

Tesla’s latest shareholder letter says production has begun. But on the company’s Oct. 21 earnings call, Musk called it “early production,” said the ramp’s opening stretch is “shallow” and “somewhat bumpy,” and acknowledged that “there’s still parts of the design that are changing.”

He conceded that the robots coming off the Fremont line don’t yet have perfected hands, that “quite a lot of work” remains on the AI, and that Tesla needs to build on the order of 10,000 or 20,000 robots just to generate the training data the software depends on. He put outside deliveries around the end of next year and said it will take “at least a year, maybe a little longer” to reach full production rates.

Musk still maintained that “Optimus will be the biggest product on Earth.” He called it “a very big deal” and said “there is no one that is even close to Tesla with respect to a general-purpose humanoid robot.”

On what happens to workers, though, Musk hasn’t hedged. In October 2025 he posted on X that “AI and robots will replace all jobs.”

His answer to the human cost is one Domin never had to offer: a “universal high income” paid by federal checks, so far proposed only in another X post. It concedes the problem: if robots take the wages, someone has to replace the paychecks. It doesn’t say who funds them.

“There’s an irony there,” says Erica Groshen, a senior economics advisor at Cornell University’s ILR School and former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2013 to 2017. The camp now floating federal checks has long been “endorsing … very low taxes,” she noted.

Checks that size need revenue, and the likeliest source is the nation’s biggest enterprises, in the AI industry and beyond. If automation’s gains flow to “owners of capital,” Groshen says, they “owe the rest of society taxes that can be used to compensate the losers.”

At Amazon, the robots that matter roll on wheels

Amazon, which this year ended Walmart’s 13-year run atop the 2026 Fortune 500, has been at this since it bought Kiva in 2012. In mid-2025 it said it had deployed its millionth robot, closing in on its human workforce of about 1.56 million employees, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Xavier Van Chau, an Amazon spokesperson for AI and robotics, calls the fleet “the state of the art in physical AI”: robots that “process real-time data to make split-second decisions,” and robotic arms, with systems named Robin, Cardinal, Sparrow, and Vulcan, that use computer vision and machine learning to select, sort, and stow items.

Its first humanoid, Agility’s Digit, began testing in October 2023 moving empty totes. Three years on, Amazon has not announced a deployment.

“We’ve made investments in this space through the Amazon Industrial Innovation Fund and have done limited testing of Agility’s Digit robot in our operations,” Van Chau said in a statement. “It’s clear that more research and development will be needed but we’re looking forward to the work ahead.”

If Optimus is Tesla’s stage show, Digit is Amazon’s, with one difference: Amazon is an investor in the act, not its producer. Agility CEO Peggy Johnson has described Digit’s warehouse work at Fortune Brainstorm Tech.

The larger plan does not need legs. Internal documents reported by the New York Times projected that automation could let Amazon avoid hiring more than 600,000 U.S. workers by 2033.

Responding to that report, Van Chau said leaked documents “often paint an incomplete and misleading picture of our plans,” and that these appear to reflect “just one team,” not the company’s overall hiring strategy. “No company has created more jobs in America over the past decade than Amazon,” he said.

Robots, he argues, create work too: “Facilities with advanced robotics require 30% more employees in reliability, maintenance, and engineering roles.” Headcount still rose in 2025, to about 1.58 million. The hiring curve may be flattening, not falling.

Washington is sorting robots by birthplace, as Čapek’s owners tried to

China is where the humanoid is being manufactured, if not yet where it is working. Chinese makers shipped more than 97% of the world’s humanoids in the first half of 2026, Bloomberg reported. Yet about 69% of humanoids went to research, education, exhibitions, and government data centers rather than production lines, according to IDC, down from 83.8% in 2025.

On July 28, the Federal Communications Commission added foreign-produced mobile robots, including humanoids, to its Covered List, blocking new models from U.S. authorization on national security grounds. The rule is “really like an import ban for national security,” says Chase Kaniecki, a Washington-based partner at Cleary Gottlieb who advises corporate clients on trade and national security.

“China is the main driver,” he says, though the rule covers all foreign-origin humanoids. Companies sourcing robots or parts abroad will have to “onshore a lot of that supply chain in order for their products to qualify.” Enforcement details are “still a little uncertain,” he adds, though U.S. Customs and the FCC will coordinate.

The risk is two humanoid industries on parallel tracks. In the play, the owners “don’t want them to form alliances or collectivity,” Zhulina says, “which they eventually still do.” In Act II, Domin proposes building each factory’s robots with a different language so they will “never be able to understand each other.”

Zhulina sees “almost this reference to the Tower of Babel,” and a nod to a world where, after World War One, workers “started to identify by their nationality” instead of uniting. The scheme fails because the robots “work by our hands,” she says. That shared labor becomes their collectivity.

The FCC’s rule sorts robots and parts the way Domin hoped to, by where they were made. Whether a border can keep two industries apart once the machines share a factory floor is the question the play leaves hanging.

Each company’s math checks out; the aggregate’s may not

The comparison has limits. Nothing in a Shenzhen showroom or a Fremont lab is drafting a manifesto. The obstacles are duller: proving reliability over a full shift, surviving a bubble shakeout Beijing itself has warned of, and clearing trade barriers.

And with China facing a demographic labor shortage, robots there may fill a gap before they create a surplus, the International Federation of Robotics notes. Čapek needed an uprising to dramatize obsolescence; today a line item will do.

Each company’s math checks out. The error appears only in aggregate, where a wage booked as a cost on one ledger is income, and demand, on another.

Economists still dispute how much of that lost income automation wins back through cheaper goods and new kinds of work. Groshen sees new jobs coming from three directions, a framework she applies to transformative technology waves like AI or humanoid robots: “the ones who supply AI, the ones who adopt AI, and the ones who have nothing to do with AI.” (For humanoids, read “AI” as “robots.”)

As prices fall, consumers buy more from the adopters and have “more money left over to buy” everything else. But “there are gaps that can hinder the adjustment,” she says: timing, geography, skills, and whether workers have a voice in the process. That voice, she says, “sometimes … comes from a union.”

Čapek didn’t end his play with the uprising. In the epilogue, the last human alive, Alquist, sends two robots who have learned to love each other out into the world as a new Adam and Eve. Čapek had to end the world to make his point, but we don’t have to.

सिर्फ ₹25 से Trade करके Crypto में रोज पैसा कैसे कमाएं? | Sagar Sinha



📈💰 CoinDCX (Crypto) – Get 20% Discount On Brokerage Using This Link

📈Trade In Cypto Community –

💰📊 Invest In Mutual Fund SIP, SWP, Stocks | Open FREE Demat Account

🛡️ Best Term Insurance – 15% Discount –
🚑 Best Health Insurance – 25% Discount –

सिर्फ ₹25 से Trade करके Crypto में रोज पैसा कैसे कमाएं? | Sagar Sinha Money Bytes

———– Social Media Handles ————————————————
Youtube – / @coachsagarsinha
Instagram- /
Facebook– /
Sagar Sinha Daily – / @sagarsinhadaily
Podcast – / @sagarsinhapodcast_
Linkedin- / sagar-sinha-87142333
Telegram –
Twiter(X) –
WhatsApp –

Website –

———————————————————————
Bazaar Ke Mahir – / @bazaarkemahir

Email – biz.sagarsinha@gmail.com

———————————————-

Disclaimer
——————————-
This video is created solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on individual research. It should not be considered as financial, investment, or trading advice. We are not SEBI-registered investment advisors or analysts. Viewers are strongly advised to conduct their own research and consult with a SEBI-registered financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
As per SEBI’s study on the derivatives segment, nine out of ten traders in the Futures & Options (F&O) market incur losses, with the average loss-making trader losing significantly more than the profitable ones gain. Trading in derivatives involves substantial risk and is not suitable for all investors.
Regarding cryptocurrencies in India: Cryptocurrencies are currently not considered legal tender in India, but trading and holding crypto assets is not banned. However, they are unregulated, and the Government of India, RBI, and SEBI have repeatedly cautioned investors about the high volatility and risk of fraud. Crypto gains are subject to a 30% tax on profits and 1% TDS on transactions as per the current tax laws. Regulatory frameworks may change in the future, and viewers should stay updated with official guidelines before making any decisions in this space.
Stock market investments are subject to market risks, and past performance is not indicative of future results. We do not guarantee any profits or protection against losses. This content is for educational purposes only and is based on personal research. Viewers should always conduct their own due diligence before making any financial decisions.
By watching this video, you acknowledge that we and our representatives are not liable for any financial losses or decisions made based on the information provided. Always trade and invest responsibly.

#CryptoTrading #Bitcoin #CryptoIndia #TradingTips #FinanceHindi #Cryptocurrency #MakeMoneyOnline #InvestmentTips #TradingForBeginners #MoneyMaking #CryptoTips #DigitalAssets #PassiveIncome #SagarSinha

source

Huntington Bank Bonus: Open New Checking Account to Get $600


Huntington Bank Checking Account Bonus

🔃 Update: This offer has been extended through January 15, 2027. The $200 bonus for Asterisk-Free Checking is not available this time around.


Huntington Bank is offering a $600 bonus for customers who open a new Platinum Perks Checking (former Huntington 25 Checking) account. There’s also a $400 bonus for the Perks Checking, and $200 for Asterisk-Free Checking. This Huntington Bank bonus is for residents of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania or West Virginia only. Check out the details below.

Offer Details

Click Apply Online on the offer page (or open in branch), yo apply the promotion code at time of account opening.

  • To qualify for the $200 cash bonus, you are required to open a new, qualifying Asterisk-Free Checking account by February 7, 2025 and:
    • Receive total qualifying direct deposits of $500 within 90 days of account opening and keep your account open for 90 days.
  • To qualify for the $400 cash bonus, you are required to open a new, qualifying Perks Checking account by January 15, 2026 and:
    • Receive total qualifying direct deposits of $500 within 90 days of account opening and keep your account open for 90 days.
  • To qualify for the $600 cash bonus, you are required to open a new, qualifying Platinum Perks Checking account by January 15, 2026 and:
    • make total new money deposits of $25,000 or more within 90 days of account opening and keep account open for 90 days.

Other Details

  • Account must maintain an open status for at least 90 days before it is eligible for the bonus payment.
  • Your bonus will be deposited into your new personal checking account within 14 days of meeting the above requirements.
  • Checking account must remain in an open status to receive the bonus.

Who is Eligible

  • This offer is only available to new business checking customers residing in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania or West Virginia.
  • Offer is not available to existing checking customers, including fiduciaries, or those with checking accounts closed within the last six months.

Account Fees

  • Platinum Perks Checking has a $25 fee waived with $25,000 in total relationship balances.
  • Perks Checking has a $10 fee waived with $1,000 in total monthly deposits or $5,000 in total relationship balances.
  • Asterisk-Free Checking has no monthly fee.
  • Account must maintain an open status for at least 90 days before it is eligible for the bonus payment.

Guru’s Wrap-Up

Earning $600 for a new checking account is a great offer. But you need to deposit $25K to get the maximum bonus. That’s also the amount that you need to have in the account to keep it fee-free. Huntington Bank also has a $400 bonus which is easier to do in my opinion, and there’s a $1,000 bonus for new business accounts.

Bank bonuses are a great way to earn some extra income, often from the comfort of your home. You can take a look at my bank bonus results for 2022 where I made over $6,000. If this bonus is not for you, then you can check our full list of available bank bonuses. And, if you’re new to bank account bonuses, you can learn more about churning bank accounts here.


💡 Link & Key Details

  • OFFER PAGE
  • Max Bonus: $600
  • Account Type: Platinum Perks Checking
  • Availability: IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, PA, WV
  • Inquiry Type: Soft pull
  • Credit Card Funding: No
  • Direct Deposit Requirement: No
  • Other Requirements:  $25,000 in deposits
  • Monthly Fee: $25 (waived with $25K balance)
  • Closing Account Fee: Must be open for 90 days to get bonus
  • Expiration Date: 2/7/23 6/7/23 10/7/23 10/7/24 2/7/25 7/7/25 6/15/26 9/30/26 1/15/27

Share Bank Bonuses and other deals with us and our readers

2027 Child Tax Credit Changes: $2,300 Per Child And $1,800 Refundable


Key Points

  • The 2027 child tax credit is $2,300 per qualifying child, up $100 from 2026, and up to $1,800 of it is refundable.
  • A family that owes no federal income tax needs $14,500 in earned income to get the full refundable amount for one child, or $26,500 for two.
  • The age limit, Social Security number rules and $200,000/$400,000 phaseout thresholds stay the same.

The 2027 child tax credit rises to $2,300 per qualifying child, up $100 from 2026. The IRS announced the increase in its annual inflation adjustments for tax year 2027. The refundable portion also climbs $100, to $1,800 per child.

Both numbers rise along with the new 2027 tax brackets and standard deduction.

The new amounts apply to income earned in 2027 and show up on returns filed in early 2028. The return you file in spring 2027 still uses the 2026 figures of $2,200 per child and $1,700 refundable. Parents who want the larger credit reflected in their 2027 paychecks can update their Form W-4 withholding in January.

Save For Later

Would you like to save this?

We'll email this article to you, so you can come back to it later!

Why It Matters

The 2027 increase is the first time the child tax credit has grown from inflation indexing alone. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act raised the credit to $2,200 per child and tied it to inflation. The IRS now refers to that law as the “Working Families Tax Cuts”.

For a family with two children under 17, the maximum credit grows to $4,600 from $4,400. Three children push the maximum to $6,900 from $6,600. We also ran four households through both years of rules.

A married couple earning $120,000 with two children would owe $336 less in 2027 with the bigger credit and standard deduction.

What Changes And What Stays The Same In 2027?

Only the credit amount and the refundable cap change for 2027. Every eligibility rule behind the 2025 child tax credit carries over, based on the IRS child tax credit rules and a Congressional Research Service report on how the credit works.

The table below compares both years.

.tci-ctc27{border:2px solid #141414;border-radius:8px;overflow:hidden;font-family:inherit;color:#141414;background:#fff;margin:24px 0}.tci-ctc27-head{background:#141414;color:#fff;padding:14px 18px;font-size:18px;font-weight:700;line-height:1.3}.tci-ctc27-head span{color:#f6c061}.tci-ctc27 table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;margin:0;font-size:15px;line-height:1.4}.tci-ctc27 th{background:#f9f7f5;color:#55504a;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:12px;letter-spacing:.05em;text-align:left;padding:10px 14px;border-bottom:1px solid #e5e0d8}.tci-ctc27 td{padding:10px 14px;border-bottom:1px solid #e5e0d8;vertical-align:top}.tci-ctc27 tbody tr:nth-child(even) td{background:#fcfbf9}.tci-ctc27 td:first-child{font-weight:600}.tci-ctc27-pill{display:inline-block;margin-left:8px;padding:1px 8px;border-radius:999px;background:#dff3e4;color:#14532d;font-size:12px;font-weight:700}.tci-ctc27-foot{background:#f9f7f5;color:#8a8378;font-size:12px;padding:10px 14px}@media (max-width:640px){.tci-ctc27 thead{display:none}.tci-ctc27 table,.tci-ctc27 tbody,.tci-ctc27 tr,.tci-ctc27 td{display:block;width:100%;box-sizing:border-box}.tci-ctc27 tr{border-bottom:1px solid #e5e0d8;padding:8px 0}.tci-ctc27 td{border-bottom:none;padding:4px 14px}.tci-ctc27 td[data-label]::before{content:attr(data-label);display:inline-block;min-width:56px;color:#8a8378;font-size:12px;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;margin-right:10px}}

Child Tax Credit: 2026 Vs. 2027
Item 2026 2027
Maximum Credit Per Child $2,200 $2,300+$100
Refundable Portion Per Child $1,700 $1,800+$100
Earnings For Full Refund, One Child $13,834 $14,500
Earnings For Full Refund, Two Children $25,167 $26,500
Earnings For Full Refund, Three Children $36,500 $38,500
Phaseout Starts, Single Or Head Of Household $200,000 $200,000
Phaseout Starts, Married Filing Jointly $400,000 $400,000
Credit Gone, Single Filer With One Child $244,000 $246,000
Credit Gone, Joint Filers With Two Children $488,000 $492,000
Credit For Other Dependents $500 $500
Source: IRS. The College Investor.
  • Age: The child must be under 17 at the end of the tax year.
  • Identification: Each qualifying child needs a Social Security number valid for employment and issued before the return’s due date. The taxpayer needs one too, and on a joint return one spouse’s number is enough.
  • Income phaseout: Above $200,000 of income, or $400,000 for married couples filing jointly, the credit shrinks by $50 for every $1,000.
  • Refund formula: The refundable portion equals 15% of earned income above $2,500, up to the per-child cap.
  • Other dependents: A dependent who doesn’t qualify, such as a 17-year-old high school senior or a college student, can still bring a $500 credit for other dependents.

The age cutoff hits families of high school juniors and seniors first. A child who turns 17 during 2027 drops from the $2,300 credit to the $500 credit for other dependents, a $1,800 difference on the 2028 return.

That loss often lands right as college costs start, so it belongs in the numbers you run through our 529 plan and college savings calculator.

How Much Income Do You Need For The Full $1,800 Refund?

For a family that owes nothing under the 2027 tax brackets, the full refundable amount takes $14,500 in earned income with one child. Two children require $26,500, and three require $38,500. Those figures come from our math on the 15% earnings formula, and each one sits above its 2026 equivalent.

Families with three or more children can also qualify through an alternative formula based on Social Security taxes paid.

The $100 increase doesn’t reach every family. A single parent of two earning $20,000 owes no federal income tax after the $24,925 head of household standard deduction. The formula caps that parent’s refund at $2,625 in both 2026 and 2027, so the higher cap adds nothing.

Refunds that include this credit also wait for the PATH Act hold, which our IRS tax refund calendar tracks each season.

Where Does The 2027 Credit Phase Out?

The 2027 credit starts shrinking above $200,000 of modified adjusted gross income, or $400,000 for joint filers. Unlike the federal tax brackets, those thresholds don’t adjust for inflation.

A bigger credit takes longer to phase out, so a single parent with one child now loses it at $246,000 instead of $244,000. For a married couple with two children, the cutoff moves to $492,000 from $488,000.

How This Connects

The credit increase is one of several family tax changes from the same 2025 law. Children born from 2025 through 2028 can get a $1,000 federal deposit in a Trump Account, and parents paying for daycare can pair the child tax credit with a dependent care FSA. Each benefit runs on its own rules, so a family with a newborn and a preschooler could use all three in 2027.

What’s Next

The new amounts will appear on Schedule 8812, the form used to claim the credit, when the IRS releases the 2027 version for the 2028 filing season. Parents should also check that their tax software supports the credit before choosing a free tier. Our TaxSlayer review found its Simply Free tier doesn’t include the child tax credit. The 2028 credit amount will arrive with next fall’s IRS inflation adjustments.

Editor: Colin Graves

The post 2027 Child Tax Credit Changes: $2,300 Per Child And $1,800 Refundable appeared first on The College Investor.