Investor says people earning ₹2 lakh have ‘spending problem’ if they don’t have ₹1 lakh in SIP

An investor's take on saving half of one’s salary ignited debate on financial discipline, spending habits, and realistic investment goals.

A discussion on financial discipline erupted on social media after Europe-based investor Sourav Dutta shared his views on savings and spending. He suggested that those earning ₹2 lakh per month should be able to invest ₹1 lakh in a systematic investment plan (SIP) and that failing to do so indicates a spending issue rather than an income problem.

Man advised investing half of one's income in SIP.(Pexel)

"If you are earning 2L/m and don't have 1L in SIP, then you don't have an income problem. You have a spending problem, my friend," Dutta wrote in a post on X.

Take a look at the post:

The statement sparked a heated debate, with users questioning the practicality of saving half their salary. One user countered, "Assuming 30% tax, one is left with 1.40 lakh net. Living on 40K and saving 1 lakh is unrealistic in my opinion. Unless you live with your parents and are taken care of. Or you're married with two incomes, so one can be saved."

Another took a different stance, highlighting investment strategy concerns: "If you are earning 2L/m and have 1L in SIP, then you don’t have financial and investment diversification knowledge and are probably following some trader on X."

One user added, “Putting 50% of your earnings directly in equity is not a wise decision. Your portfolio needs to be diverse. SIPs are a great but they should not be the only investment and definitely not 50% of your monthly income Need to have rainy day funds in your savings bank, banks like IDFC give interest upto 7.5% in saving banks paid monthly which you can reinvest. Ofcourse there would be tax implications. You need to have gold in your portfolio, you need to have PPFs, FDs etc to balance out stock market crashes!"

Dutta has previously sparked discussions on financial classifications. In an earlier post, he argued that individuals with a liquid net worth of ₹50 lakh should be considered “lower middle class.” He even shared a table categorising wealth, stating that those with ₹10 lakh in liquid assets would fall under the "poor" category.