How should I distribute my savings?
"You need to track all of your expenses first, inventarize all of your assets and liabilities, and set financial goals. For example, you need to know your average monthly expenses and exactly what percentages interest each loan charges, and you need to know what to save for (your children, retirement, large purchases, etc). Then you create an emergency fund: keep between 4 to 6 months worth of your monthly expenses in a savings account that you can readily access. Base the size of your emergency fund on your expenses rather than your salary. This also means its size changes over time, for example, it must increase once you have children. You then pay off your loans, starting with the loan charging the highest interest. You do this because e.g. paying off $X of a 7% loan is equivalent to investing $X and getting a guaranteed 7% return. The stock market does generally does not provide guarantees. Starting with the highest interest first is mathematically the most rewarding strategy in the long run. It is not a priori clear whether you should pay off all loans as fast as possible, particularly those with low interest rates, and the mortgage. You need to read up on the subject in order to make an informed decision, this would be too personal advice for us to give. After you've created that emergency fund, and paid of all high interest loans, you can consider investing in vessels that achieve your set financial goals. For example, since you are thinking of having children within five years, you might wish to save for college education. That implies immediately that you should pick an investment vessels that is available after 20 year or so and does not carry too much risk (e.g. perhaps bonds or deposits). These are a few basic advices, and I would recommend to look further on the internet and perhaps read a book on the topic of ""personal finance""."
It's a little extra hassle come tax-time if you have a distribution to account for, as you'd be required to file Form 8606. If you pay for tax-preparation the extra fees could easily wipe out any interest earned.  Roth IRA savings accounts don't seem to earn much interest, so while you could come out slightly ahead with this approach, I don't think it's worth it. I prefer to keep a portion of my emergency fund in an online savings account (0.75% interest), and another portion in CD's (2.10% interest) through the same bank. Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due.  This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility.  A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely.  This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes. He was on social security and no other income, so by taking small withdrawals each year would have had nearly no tax due. (and could have avoided 'market' risk by selling within the IRA and buying treasuries or CDs.)  He didn't need a trust of course, just education. The deceased, his sister, might have used a Trust to manage the IRA and enforce limited withdrawals. Mixing IRAs and trust is complex, but the choice between a $2000 expense to create a trust or the $40K tax bill he got is pretty clear to me. He took pride in having sold out as the market soon tanked, but he could have avoided the tax loss as well. He was confusing the account (In this case an IRA, but it could have been a 401(k) or other retirement account) with the investments it contained. One can, and should, keep the IRA in tact, and simply adjust the allocation according to one's comfort level.  Note - Inheritance tax laws change frequently, and my answer above was an attempt to be generic. The current (2014) code allows $5.34M to be left by one decedent with no estate tax. $23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed.  Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep   my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not   necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases.  There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly. "But for the people that do, and sacrifice it all in order to make a better life for their children, would you then tax them so their children have to start over at nothing again?  Would I personally tax them? Only if I truly wanted a meritocracy. If I wanted a pure meritocracy then yes absolutely. The parent is the one who clawed out of poverty, not the kid. The kid just rode along, he didn't agonize to get out. Why should he enjoy the fruits of someone else without any of the labor? (This is just the argument.) What I personally want would be something a little more 'gray' but it is hard because everyone in a society is going to want a different shade of that gray.   ""That sounds like incentivising poverty again, and it doesn't actually fix anything.If unemployment benefits and higher taxes are the problems keeping people in poverty, I don't see how the solution should be to tax more so that we can what... have more benefits programs that incentivise poverty?""  There's a lot to this question so I might not respond to each and every thought here, sorry about that. Sure, some unemployment benefits and higher taxes might de-motivate people to work harder. Why work harder when your labor won't be enjoyed by your offspring? Well you as an individual would still enjoy your labor, and presumably it would be easier to claw one's self out of poverty because economic mobility would have been improved upon. The issue that many are complaining about is that it is becoming more and more common for Americans to die in the same socioeconomic status they were born in, or a lower one. There are higher economic mobility rates in many of these other countries, but why? (Big research topic). Furthermore, I personally think that economic policy needs to adapt to the changes in society and technology. To think policies of the past are appropriate for other times, is an over simplification in my mind.   ""It feels good to demonize the ""rich"" because we all can participate. The homeless can blame the $40k income can blame the $250k income can blame the $1M income can blame the %1. Because they have more stuff than we do. But taking that stuff away doesn't increase the standard of living for anyone, it actually makes it more difficult for everyone.""  Maybe for some people, simply attacking people who have more money is satisfying and they will simply always attack someone who has more. However, my understanding is that extreme inequality is actually a problem that reduces a countries rate of growth. (I am not alone in this) That is, the distribution of wealth has been slowly shifting, why? How are things changing? Why are things become more stratified? Why is economic mobility decreasing? Why is American productivity raising dramatically while wages have been stagnating and not keeping up with how hard they work? The distribution of wealth is simply a data point, an indication of underlying issues. No one I know says that the distribution itself is inherently bad, the question is what that distribution tells us about the structure of a country." "Safe short term and ""pay almost nothing"" go hand in hand.  Anything that is safe for the short term will not pay much in interest/appreciation. If you don't know what to do, putting it in a savings account is the safest thing.  The purpose of that isn't to earn money, it's just to store the money while you figure out where to move it to earn money." You're asking for opinions here, which is kindof against the rules, but I'll give it a try. 1) Does emergency funds and saving money(eg.Money plan to buy a       house) should be in same Saving Account? 2) or should each specific saving plan set up in particular Saving Account? No, it doesn't. It's a matter of convenience. I personally find it more convinient to have different stashes for different purposes, but it means extra overhead of keeping an eye on one more account. Fortunately, with on-line access, mint.com and spreadsheets, it's not that big of an overhead. 3) If saved in same Saving Account, how could I manage easily which       percentage is planned for which? Excel spreadsheet comes to mind. Banks may have some tools too, for example Wells Fargo (where I'll be closing my account soon), has a nice on-line goals manager that allows you to keep track of your savings per assigned goals (they allow one goal per savings account, but you can have multiple accounts for multiple goals, and it will show the goals and progress pretty nicely). 4) If not saved in same Saving Account, the interest earned would be smaller because they all clutter across multiple Saving Accounts? In some banks interest rates are tiered. But in most on-line savings accounts they're not, and you get the same high rate from the first $1 deposited. So if in the bank where you keep the money they only pay a decent rate if you deposit some big lump of money - just open an account elsewhere. Places to check: American Express FSB, ING Direct, E*Trade savings, Capital One, Ally, and many more. It depends on how much you save, how much your savings earns each year.  You can model it with a very simple spreadsheet:  Formula view:  You can change this simple model with any other assumptions you wish to make and model. This spreadsheet presumes that you only make $50,000/year, never get a raise, that your savings earns 6% per year and that the market never has a crash like 2008. The article never states the assumptions that the author has made, and therefore we can't honestly determine how truthful the author is.  I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement as it has more detailed models and goes into more details about what you should expect. I wrote a slightly more detailed post that showed a spreadsheet that is basically what I use at home to track my retirement savings. You have to balance several concerns here. The primary problem is that if you go to the effort of saving your money you want to also be sure that your savings will not lose too much of its value to inflation. Ukraine had a terrible inflation spike in 2015 for obvious reasons. Even as inflation has settled down in 2016, it is stabilizing around 12% which is very high  Exchange rates are your next concern. If you lose a large percentage of the value of your money just in the process of exchanging it, that also eats away at the value of your money. If you accept the US Federal Reserve target of 2% inflation, then you should only exchange money that you will hold long enough that both exchange fees will outweigh the 10% inflation advantage. Even in cases where you have placed your money in a foreign currency, there's a chance that your government could freeze accounts denominated in foreign currencies, so there's always the political risk that you have to factor in. For that reason keeping foreign currency in cash also has some appeal because it cannot be confiscated as easily. You could still certainly be robbed, so keeping all of your savings in cash isn't a great solution either. All in all, you are diversifying your savings if you use the strategy of balancing all three methods. Splitting it evenly to 5% for each method isn't the most important. I would suggest taking advantage of good exchange rates (as they appear) to time when you buy foreign currency.