SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

$3000/mo cruising budget

117K views 627 replies 88 participants last post by  colemj 
#1 ·
Determining a cruising budget and trying to find out if it will work seems like one of the most important parts of cruising, yet is one of the hardest to find any answers on. Before I got into sailing I spent 2 years researching the cost issues and in the end kind of just gave up and placed myself on a path to cruising anyway.

The question frequently becomes all jammed up with "it depends" and "it costs whatever you can afford to spend" answers. Which are true, but of little value for planning. Planning becomes even more important for those not so young when the decision to stop working and go cruising equals an end to a career and little chance of returning to work at anywhere near the level they were when they sailed off. The goal becomes balancing leaving while young enough to get the most of of cruising, while working long enough to not run out of money.

But I'm becoming more and more job burnt out and more and more caught in the dream, so find myself looking for the answer. To do it I spend lots of time reading though blogs looking for what people are spending and comparing it to what they are doing. I read things like the "Interview with a Cruiser Project", waste my time on the various forums, and just plain taking a guess based on what it costs me to live on land and maintain my boat now and have a budget in mind.

The budget I'm currently planning for is $3000/mo, which has to cover basically everything. Now this isn't a down and dirty budget, and it isn't a live high budget. But it is expected to be a comfortable budget that allows sightseeing and not eating out of a can budget. And as an average amount is one that I could cruise on till I no longer an able (that $3000/mo, $36,000/yr budget becomes $52,500 when I'm 75 at 2% inflation).

If you are in the cruise for $500/mo group this isn't a thread for you. But if you are in a similar position for cruising on $3000/mo I would love to see comments on what you expect this to mean far as your cruising plans.
 
See less See more
#416 ·
Gary, you were born after lead and tin weren't so blatant in cans anymore, and before BPA got used on them. You grew up in the Golden Age when even antibiotics worked and worked well.

However, the BPA, as an estrogen disrupter, might either be protecting you from prostate cancer (if men live long enough, the only ones who don't suffer from it are castrati's) or perhaps, it has raised your voice an octave and thrown a wrench into your vocal career. Seems to be some confusion over that.

But I have no problem baking a bread with no preservatives except a dose of salt, that will last over a week without any fuzzy stuff growing on it. The trick is, simply not to HANDLE it with your hands directly, since they are normally loaded with critters.

Of course 50 years ago the now-normal science of epigenetics hadn't been discovered, and geneticists have only recently been acknowledging that pretty much every chemical in our environment has a direct physical chance to change our genetics. And WILL change them, by simple exposure. The only question being how much of what can cause which changes.

That much they ARE all agreed on.
 
#417 ·
My grandmother lived to 97, smoked every day and died from natural causes, not heart or lung disease. That proves nothing about the safety of cigarettes.

The proliferation of processed foods in American culture has a pretty clear correlation to obesity and related diseases. While I don't agree with Bloomberg's government driven soda ban, he was right that it is a scourge. I still believe (hypothesize) that the concoction of chemicals across our food supply, which is much more prevent than it was in WWII, is causing systemic illnesses overall, not for every single user. This impact is on the youngest of our current population, not the oldest.

If you dig frozen dinners and canned food, I fully support your right to eat them.
 
#419 ·
My grandmother lived to 97, smoked every day and died from natural causes, not heart or lung disease. That proves nothing about the safety of cigarettes.

The proliferation of processed foods in American culture has a pretty clear correlation to obesity and related diseases. While I don't agree with Bloomberg's government driven soda ban, he was right that it is a scourge. I still believe (hypothesize) that the concoction of chemicals across our food supply, which is much more prevent than it was in WWII, is causing systemic illnesses overall, not for every single user. This impact is on the youngest of our current population, not the oldest.

If you dig frozen dinners and canned food, I fully support your right to eat them.
I agree with your right to eat crap... But as it costs everyone to support the eaters in hospital I support governments rights to tax the crap out of crap.

In Australia cigarettes are now over $20 per pack. In the Caribbean they are $2 per pack. More people here smoke than in Australia.

Coke kills people. Tax sweet drinks just like sensible countries tax smokes.

Mark
 
#421 ·
Grew up healthy eating preserved food. Glass, not cans. Meat ,fish ,veggies. No salt and self grown. Lead from cans probably reduces IQ more than kills you False estrogene from plastic .Way too much salt in most foods and sugar consumption is off the scale. Figure that you die stupid,diabetic and obese of heart failure.(with large breasts). Self inflicted and personal. Might as well drink to compensate.
 
#423 ·
Ain't it amazing how many folks sincerely believe that if you tax something those taxed will make things better. ;) Maryland has a rain tax and a poop tax, both of which are supposed to clean up Chesapeake Bay. Anyone that believes that will work obviously believes in the tooth fairy.

Gary:cool:
 
#426 ·
I'm curious Gary. What is it that you object to about the "rain tax"? Impervious surfaces increase the amount of pollutants that enter the bay. Taxing impervious surfaces (which is what the tax was supposed to do) will either provide incentives to reduce the number of impervious surfaces, or will provide funds to better treat the resulting runoff. Either way, it works towards reducing bay pollution.

If it is about implementation, I can't disagree with you. There seems to be a real lack of clarity on how the tax should be applied and how the funds should be used. But, to me, that does not suggest the tax was a bad idea, just that the idiots in charge still have some work to do. There are, of course, other solutions: like attempt to reduce the amount of pollution generated in the first place.

As for the "poop tax", I assume you are referring to the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fee, known as the "flush tax", which does not seem to have similar implementation problems. Funds go directly to upgrading all 67 major state sewage treatment plants "to the enhanced nutrient removal process to reduce the load of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged into the Chesapeake and its tributaries." The number of times I have seen sailnet members use the miserable state of sewage treatment as a justification for boaters dumping directly overboard, I am truly shocked to see anyone opposed to such a tax.

For now, I will keep my beliefs on the tooth fairy to myself. :)
 
#429 · (Edited)
You want to see thread drift? Check this out....this is me, right now...


Here is the problem, I am in Nigeria, waiting for VIPs. If the world was going to get an enema it would be very close to where I am right this second. The other part of the problem is my boat, it is in Langkawi, Malaysia...without me so you guys can complain all you want about taxes. At least you are sailing. The grass may be greener but I am in the dust. Stay sailing my friends.
Me
8°26'07.2"N 4°29'39.5"E

http://goo.gl/maps/6y25F

Sent from my LG Mobile
 
#430 · (Edited)
Thanks for the keys to your new yacht Jerry! Great to see you in Langkawi! Will be my pleasure to prepare Tempation for it's voyage to Thailand. Wish you were here!

PS...Is it OK for me to take along some Swedish backpacker chicks I just met?
 
#436 · (Edited)
mr f, I have written extensively about both taxes, neither of which has, or will do anything to actually clean up Chesapeake Bay. The Rain Tax in particular, does absolutely nothing but penalize businesses and individuals for paving porous surfaces, all of which are completely surrounded by either dense lawns that absorb any and all run-off, or forested lands, that also absorb the runoff. In fact, there is a lot of research that was conducted many years ago that clearly shows those lawns filter far better than any forest lands and Maryland legislators rejected a bill that would mandate a 20-foot grass buffer zone around all tilled and no-till agricultural lands, a measure that would have prevented an enormous amount of run-off from entering the bay and it's tributaries.

That flush tax, which is in addition to all the other wastewater fees, was directed at homeowners that have failing septic systems, something that is fairly rare if you do your research. Additionally, when your septic system does fail, as my next door neighbor's did because he used chlorine bleach in every wash load, the red tape a person has to go through to get that updated septic system was so horrible that after three days of filling out forms and making phone calls that went unanswered, he gave up and spent $12,000 on a conventional system. The state agency that was supposed to provide assistance never did return any of his dozen telephone calls.

My major objection to those, and many other taxes is that they never accomplish anything other than create another bureaucracy and a bunch of pork barrel jobs, all at the expense of the low and middle income taxpayers. The rain tax has actually caused several profitable small business owners to either go out of business, or move their businesses to other states that do not penalize small businesses like Maryland does on a regular basis. I have a friend that has a body fender shop that sits upon 1-acre of paved ground. He pays more than $100,000 in additional taxes each year for his impervious surfaces and he has a collection pond for capturing the run-off. None of that runoff goes anywhere but into the collection pond where it evaporates. The only way he can recoup that tax money is to raise his prices, a move that would benefit no one but those holding down those pork barrel jobs. It will do nothing to clean up the bay.

One more thing I though I should add. There have been studies conducted at taxpayer expense on Chesapeake Bay since the 1890s. All of those studies claimed they would cleanse the waters of Chesapeake Bay - none EVER did. Keep in mind that I'm an old guy and in the early 1960s was a commercial diver. At that time I was diving for oysters in Chesapeake Bay and harvesting them by hand using a pry bar from among the pilings of the old Chesapeake Bay Bridge at Sandy Point. The underwater visibility back then averaged about 20 feet during October. Since then, more than $12-billion taxpayer dollars has been spent on the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup program and associated research projects. Today, during the month of October, the underwater visibility at the same location is less than 6 inches, there are no longer any oysters there and any location where there are oysters there will be someone there tonging and dredging the bottom to remove them. And then, taxpayer dollars will be used to replenish them.

Keep putting those teeth under your pillow - you'll eventually receive enough quarters to buy a huge sailing yacht. And, then you can sail that boat in the pristine waters of Chesapeake Bay that was cleansed by all those tax dollars you laid out. Get my drift.

All the best,

Gary :cool:
 
#437 · (Edited)
mr f, I have written extensively about both taxes, neither of which has, or will do anything to actually clean up Chesapeake Bay. The Rain Tax in particular, does absolutely nothing but penalize businesses and individuals for paving porous surfaces, all of which are completely surrounded by either dense lawns that absorb any and all run-off, or forested lands, that also absorb the runoff. In fact, there is a lot of research that was conducted many years ago that clearly shows those lawns filter far better than any forest lands and Maryland legislators rejected a bill that would mandate a 20-foot grass buffer zone around all tilled and no-till agricultural lands, a measure that would have prevented an enormous amount of run-off from entering the bay and it's tributaries.

That flush tax, which is in addition to all the other wastewater fees, was directed at homeowners that have failing septic systems, something that is fairly rare if you do your research. Additionally, when your septic system does fail, as my next door neighbor's did because he used chlorine bleach in every wash load, the red tape a person has to go through to get that updated septic system was so horrible that after three days of filling out forms and making phone calls that went unanswered, he gave up and spent $12,000 on a conventional system. The state agency that was supposed to provide assistance never did return any of his dozen telephone calls.

My major objection to those, and many other taxes is that they never accomplish anything other than create another bureaucracy and a bunch of pork barrel jobs, all at the expense of the low and middle income taxpayers. The rain tax has actually caused several profitable small business owners to either go out of business, or move their businesses to other states that do not penalize small businesses like Maryland does on a regular basis. I have a friend that has a body fender shop that sits upon 1-acre of paved ground. He pays more than $100,000 in additional taxes each year for his impervious surfaces and he has a collection pond for capturing the run-off. None of that runoff goes anywhere but into the collection pond where it evaporates. The only way he can recoup that tax money is to raise his prices, a move that would benefit no one but those holding down those pork barrel jobs. It will do nothing to clean up the bay.

One more thing I though I should add. There have been studies conducted at taxpayer expense on Chesapeake Bay since the 1890s. All of those studies claimed they would cleanse the waters of Chesapeake Bay - none EVER did. Keep in mind that I'm an old guy and in the early 1960s was a commercial diver. At that time I was diving for oysters in Chesapeake Bay and harvesting them by hand using a pry bar from among the pilings of the old Chesapeake Bay Bridge at Sandy Point. The underwater visibility back then averaged about 20 feet during October. Since then, more than $12-billion taxpayer dollars has been spent on the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup program and associated research projects. Today, during the month of October, the underwater visibility at the same location is less than 6 inches, there are no longer any oysters there and any location where there are oysters there will be someone there tonging and dredging the bottom to remove them. And then, taxpayer dollars will be used to replenish them.

Keep putting those teeth under your pillow - you'll eventually receive enough quarters to buy a huge sailing yacht. And, then you can sail that boat in the pristine waters of Chesapeake Bay that was cleansed by all those tax dollars you laid out. Get my drift.

All the best,

Gary :cool:
Gary,

I have already been admonished about contributing to the thread drift towards taxes, so I will leave this, although I would enjoy discussing further in a more appropriate venue. Things are not as you describe: runoff from impervious surfaces is a real problem; the flush tax is not aimed at septic users (80% of the tax is paid by public sewer users); and it is actually making a difference (around half of the sewage treatment plants have been upgraded -- on track to upgrade the remainder.) Will the bay end up pristine? Of course not. Will it help?

I am not sure I am catching your drift. Do you think the tooth fairy will clean up the bay if we decide not to fund upgrades to public infrastructure?
 
#438 ·
Gary-
Most of us east coasters know "Mary Land" as the fine little speedbump on I-95 that reduces their speed limit by 10mph just to raise ticket revenues.
Coupla years ago they also made the news for creating three "School Zones" because speeding in a school zone doubles the fine.
And the kicker? They created the school zones in areas where there are no adjacent schools, and no residences, so there are no schoolkids either. Just, oddly enough, double fines.

So, you know, making money by regulating things that don't exist? Yeah, they've got that down to an art form. You don't want to know what paperwork the tooth faerie has to go through, before she can recycle a single tooth there!
 
#443 ·
Gary-
Most of us east coasters know "Mary Land" as the fine little speedbump on I-95 that reduces their speed limit by 10mph just to raise ticket revenues...
The speed limit on I-95 in Delaware is 55. Are you telling me that in Maryland it is 45?

Starting your whole rant with a blatant falsehood detracts from your whole story. I drive through Maryland all the time and have never seen any evidence that I-95 speed enforcement is any different than elsewhere. But then, I tend to obey the traffic laws, so maybe I'm not a representative example. ;)
 
#439 · (Edited)
Mr f, you've been paying for those infrastructure improvements since the first day you lived in Maryland. Guess what, most of those payments went into the general fund and were not directed at wastewater treatment plant upgrades. Instead, they went into pork barrel jobs.

As for the tooth fairy cleaning up the bay, you have a better shot at that than any of the programs that have been in place for more than a century. And, that is clearly evidenced by a huge number of agencies.

I got in trouble for putting this statement in print, but only because the truth hurts. That statement was "Every time there is a new baby born in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, that baby poops in Chesapeake Bay, and that baby produces many, many more babies that all poop in Chesapeake Bay. Nearly all of the water flowing down the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers is completely recycled. If the good folks in Harrisburg don't flush their toilets, Havre de Grace, Port Deposit, Baltimore and many other municipalities wouldn't have any drinking water."

Yes, it's true, the residents of all those cities are drinking recycled wastewater." I confirmed this with the EPA before I put it in print, but the $hit hit the fan when it was published. It was part of a major story I wrote about the quality of the nations waterways. It took two years of investigation to put t he articles together and believe me, there was very little cooperation from the feds and states - they really don't want people to know this stuff. What they want you know is in the news releases put out by their PR departments.

Now, the question you must ask yourself is why does the federal or a state government NEED a PR department? And, how many taxpayer dollars does that PR department cost annually? You could take that money from one county in Maryland and buy that megayacht you've always dreamed of owning.

That's my drift,

Gary :cool:
 
#440 ·
Mr f, you've been paying for those infrastructure improvements since the first day you lived in Maryland. Guess what, most of those payments went into the general fund and were not directed at wastewater treatment plant upgrades. Instead, they went into pork barrel jobs.

As for the tooth fairy cleaning up the bay, you have a better shot at that than any of the programs that have been in place for more than a century. And, that is clearly evidenced by a huge number of agencies.

I got in trouble for putting this statement in print, but only because the truth hurts. That statement was "Every time there is a new baby born in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, that baby poops in Chesapeake Bay, and that baby produces many, many more babies that all poop in Chesapeake Bay. Nearly all of the water flowing down the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers is completely recycled. If the good folks in Harrisburg don't flush their toilets, Havre de Grace, Port Deposit, Baltimore and many other municipalities wouldn't have any drinking water."

Yes, it's true, the residents of all those cities are drinking recycled wastewater." I confirmed this with the EPA before I put it in print, but the $hit hit the fan when it was published. It was part of a major story I wrote about the quality of the nations waterways. It took two years of investigation to put t he articles together and believe me, there was very little cooperation from the feds and states - they really don't want people to know this stuff. What they want you know is in the news releases put out by their PR departments.

Now, the question you must ask yourself is why does the federal or a state government NEED a PR department? And, how many taxpayer dollars does that PR department cost annually? You could take that money from one county in Maryland and buy that megayacht you've always dreamed of owning.

That's my drift,

Gary :cool:
The flush tax does not go into the general fund. From the bill:

The Bay Restoration Fund will consist of revenue generated from the bay restoration fee (as described above), net proceeds of bonds issued by WQFA, interest or other investment income, and any additional money from any other sources. Money in the fund may not revert or be transferred to the general fund.
Here is the status of the facility upgrades being funded by said fund:

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs...nts/WWTP_Update_for_BayStat_December_2014.pdf

And here are charts explaining some of the benefits of the improvements

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/BayRestorationFund/Documents/TNchart.pdf
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/BayRestorationFund/Documents/TPChartfinal.pdf

My guess is that govt needs a PR department because of the large amount of disinformation being disseminated by people such as yourself.
 
#441 ·
Let me get back to the thread topic before I digress...

We have been cruising in Mexico (Sea of Cortez) since November and have been able to easily stay under a $3000 per month budget. Granted, this has only been a little over 4 months, but we frequently stay in marinas, eat out, have boat insurance, and have had to use the health care system here. In other words, we feel we have a pretty good standard of living and are not just squeaking by. For those looking to cruise on a smaller budget I think a few factors make a difference.

1) We have a smaller boat (34'). If you plan on staying in marinas for any length of time, this matters. Bigger boats cost more money to keep in a marina, or haul out for repairs. We initially planned to live off the hook, but when we got to La Paz we liked having a slip and all the amenities that come with it. We use it as a home base and go out to the islands here for a couple of weeks, come back, re-provision, use the pool and hot tub, use the marina wi-fi, spend time in La Paz, and then head out again for another couple of weeks. Last week we called about getting a slip in San Carlos during hurricane season while we fly back for a wedding. All of the 40' slips were booked and had a long waiting list. However, we were able to get a 32' slip, no problem. A smaller boat is also cheaper to outfit. The standing and running rigging, anchor tackle, sails, etc are all smaller and cost significantly less. I could afford to buy top quality sails, anchor gear, etc for a 34’ boat, I would not have for a 40 footer. It all adds up, and will nickle and dime you to death.

2) Location. Mexico is much cheaper than the states (except for slips, which average more than San Diego for some reason). Food is much cheaper here, so we can eat out more often. We just went to the farmers market today and bought a weeks worth of vegetables for less than $10. Taxis are cheaper. Health care - my wife had emergency eye surgery (retinal tear) and it cost $450 dollars for top quality care. If money is really an issue, Mexico is hard to beat. By the way, we feel safer walking the streets here than anywhere in downtown LA.

3) Boat modification. I agree with those people that say go cruising for a year and then figure out what you need. However, I didn’t do that. We did A LOT of research, agonized over every decision and did everything prior to leaving while I still had a job. For us, that was key. I still had an income coming in and could afford the endless trips to West Marine. I can’t do that now, it would bankrupt us. Also, boat parts are really expensive here – they buy from West Marine, mark it up, add shipping and %16 sales tax. So far, our boat has been almost trouble free. We met a couple here that is ready to quit after five months, because they haven’t stopped fixing things since they got here. They are almost broke and are not having fun. We took a risk adding equipment that we might not have needed, but so far that hasn’t been the case. Plus, I did everything myself saving me thousands of dollars. I also know the ship inside and out and have most of the necessary specialty tools needed – like a stubby 24mm box wrench needed for the engine mounts. I wouldn’t have known that was needed if I had paid someone else to change or adjust my engine mounts. Also, if given the choice I went with simple, proven, high quality gear – let people with money experiment with the latest, greatest gadgets. Lastly, I leaned towards oversizing equipment – nothing too strong ever broke.

4) Get rid of debt. We paid off the boat. We sold our house. Sold all of our furniture and other stuff. Sold one of our vehicles (we kept my truck, which is paid off and stored with my Dad). We have almost no monthly payments. Having no debt hanging over our heads is to us, freedom.

Now I’ll digress.
It amazes me that the cruising community (who rejects the rat race, lives on our own terms, free to live and go where we want when we want, takes complete responsibility for our ship and crew, independent thinkers and doers) can side with the nanny state crowd. To say that because it costs society (ie: health care costs for sugar, smoking, etc) it must be regulated (taxed, whatever) is crazy, and where do you draw that line? ANYTHING can be regulated on that theory. After the national news coverage of the cruising family that was rescued off the coast of Mexico awhile back, every one of my non-sailing friends made it a point to tell me how crazy they were and why do we let people do that? My point is that the same argument can (and will eventually) be made for us. It costs society to have and operate a Coast Guard. To save taxpayer dollars and lives the government should regulate cruisers by mandating the size and type of vessel for offshore use, the number of crew, training requirements (offshore classes, captains licenses), mandatory equipment and electronics, vessel inspections, recurring testing, etc. That would definitely reduce the number of Coast Guard rescues and probably save lives, but you would also make it cost prohibitive to the vast majority of us. Cruising would become similar to the America’s Cup race – only the wealthy need apply. No thank you, I’m an adult that can make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions.
 
#442 ·
You are right, the flush tax does not go directly into the general fund, same as the transportation trust fund. Guess what, they get raided all the time. Maybe it's time for you to spend some time in Annapolis at the hearings and pay your dues like I did. I spent 20 plus years covering the Annapolis beat, and just because you saw something on the Internet doesn't make it a fact.

Have a fun day,

Gary :cool:
 
#445 · (Edited)
You are right, the flush tax does not go directly into the general fund, same as the transportation trust fund. Guess what, they get raided all the time. Maybe it's time for you to spend some time in Annapolis at the hearings and pay your dues like I did. I spent 20 plus years covering the Annapolis beat, and just because you saw something on the Internet doesn't make it a fact.

Have a fun day,

Gary :cool:
So, you question my sources. Fine. Do you have any sources that contradict them? Do you have any sources at all? What evidence do you have that these funds have been raided? After all, the intended projects are being completed with these funds. How could that have happened if the funds were sent elsewhere?

Seems a bit strange to attack my understanding of the issue (when you do not know me at all) when as near as I can tell, you are simply pulling falsehoods out of your backside. It is true that reading something on the internet does not make it true. However, primary sources (like the actual bill, the government reports on the status of projects, etc.) are far more likely to be true than some guy just making stuff up because he "spent 20 plus years on the Annapolis beat" and for some inexplicable reason is opposed to paying his share of dealing with the large amount of sewage created by the people of his state.
 
#446 ·
Takefive-
You mean, I've confused Mary Land with Delaware ?!? Or maybe, things changed over the years.

Either way, at least one of them seems to grossly disagree with Mr. Eisenhower's design team, as to what the speed limit on that road can safely be.

If confusing those two states is the greatest mistake I've ever made, by all means, set Woodward & Bernstein on to fact-checking everything I misrecall!
 
#447 ·
Takefive-
You mean, I've confused Mary Land with Delaware ?!? Or maybe, things changed over the years...
I mean exactly what I said. When you start your rant with a falsehood, you undermine your credibility so that the whole story is called into question. Whether you confused your states or forgot that we're in the 21st century is for you to figure out. I was just pointing out that your statement was not supported by the facts, even though you thought it had an element of "truthiness." Truthiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 
#448 ·
Mr f, the only thing I have is transcripts and taped interviews with senators and delegates during the hearings, but you are obviously right about the entire issue because you've read the entire bill, including the fine print, and the bay is becoming pristine as I type this.

Keep paying those taxes and wake me up when you can see the bottom of the bay 20 feet beneath the surface,

Gary :cool:
 
#451 · (Edited)
Crazy thread drifters done killed my thread again :(

I was looking at my cruising kitty spreadsheet today and thought it was a worry that it ran out of money at 80, then I noticed I had put in $4k/mo and accidently saved it. I fixed it and am now on path to boat party a long time.

So which country will take the best care of an old broken down US $4k/mo cruiser? After all there is going to come a time that with my experience it is going to be in major demand from the hotties.


BTW - Mark J will never know this lesson.
 
#454 · (Edited)
Crazy thread drifters done killed my thread again :(

I was looking at my cruising kitty spreadsheet today and thought it was a worry that it ran out of money at 80, then I noticed I had put in $4k/mo and accidently saved it. I fixed it and am now on path to boat party a long time.

So which country will take the best care of an old broken down US $4k/mo cruiser? After all there is going to come a time that with my experience it is going to be in major demand from the hotties.

BTW - Mark J will never know this lesson.
Without a doubt it will be Thailand. Between Singapore for batteries and a few other things, Malaysia for the teak, good place to haul out, and good labor, Thailand is but a few days sail away from these places. Nice water for diving, great food cheap, very pretty girls, and very reasonable medical. Very pretty place, many things to do if you open yourself a bit, and a lot of history. Just stay away from hanging out full time at some of the yacht clubs. This can be expensive and will suck the life from you. Thailand has some great cruising and diving spots. You won't get bored. The PI, Sumatra, Borneo are right around the corner. No doubts in my mind, this is the place. Also there are some things that don't belong on a spread sheet. Don't get me wrong though, if you have 4k burning a hole in your pocket you can spend it. However if you live right, you can live very very well and stay within your budget. And best of all, the SN east coasters will be jealous.
 
#452 ·
For a boat buck you could have a different hottie every night for a month in some parts of the world...That item in excel might cause your system to crash....
 
#455 ·
Jerry, glad you've made your choice. Missed you at the annual summit SN meeting on Koh Jum. Actually it was a short quarum of one .Naren ,our Mongolian songstress got tired of waiting for a ship to come in . Left for China. Snooze, yu loose. Our favourite part of the world is quickly filling up with expat types from all over who realize they can retire there on a really small income. Some even have boats. I can attest to the high quality and affordability of the new Krabi hospital as I spent a week there in ICU after we last met . Don, all that experience is not a valuable commodity. The hotties are just as keen to make their own mistakes as they always were.Still, we can stand on our wallets and hope.
 
#458 ·
To just be a useful post on the thread:

How old are you going to be then and what is your budget for cutting the dock lines?
 
#460 ·
Alex Dorsey and his wife spend 600 a month for two. Chuck and his wife 1200 including premium beer. Emerald Steel crew crew is in the South Pacific now on what appears to be under 1000 a month. And I can see all these people on the internet. Talk of 5k a month budgets and flying home every month to see the kids is all flubbery and self aggrandizement. I don't see these people doing anything more than a 6 month cruise to Chicken Harbour then back home to mother. Just my opinion. Which is not even worth 2 cents.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top