I think the core concept with budgeting with a surplus is excellent idea, but Kiyosaki’s approach does scare me. I think I can relate more with Betty’s worry than with Kiyosaki’s confidence.

I do agree with Kiyosaki’s approach with putting himself and his family first, before the bill collectors. It show’s his life’s priorities that being his family’s well being. Pulling extra work to do this and to bring in more of income is also an excellent way to do this. (It also supports his Emotional Intelligence, by swallowing his pride.)

However, if one doesn’t pay the house payment, utility, car, and other life’s expensises… uhm there goes family well being. I’m not really sure how he got away with it (at first). I see it once he started raising his income, which probably comforted Betty’s worry.

I’m on the fence about his approach. I have to say though, I do budget for my family first – I put them first though by making sure they have a roof on their head (Mortgage), they are well feed, they have clothes, that I can take them to school and I can go to work (car & gas) and etc. Kiyosaki dictates that’s where his 70% would’ve gone and if it could not be met it was sacraficed, that does worry me.

However, I understand very much about the 30% and the funny thing is we may not even realize that we are doing it. By putting away in our 401ks (and/or IRAs), rainy day funds, quick cash funds, and etc we are putting ourselves first.

So, yes I can see how I am using the Kiyosaki’s approach, but I don’t think I’m willing to intentionaly do the sacrafice if I can’t make a car payment. I’ll pull in more hours at work and cut coupons… rofl, so on that side of the fence no I’m not using Kiyosaki’s approach and living poor.

I guess it comes down to the circumstances of one’s living situation (and to strive to budget with a surplus). The best of both worlds sounds to be the best choice.

Good Article!

Thanks,
BlueJeans