Support NeoGAF

[David Incorporated Esq.]

We live in an average middle class neighborhood in CA

Mortgage -$3000

Average middle class neighborhood. =! $3000 Mortgage.

The median mortgage payment is about $1300 a month, and the average is about $1600 or so. You're at $3000. $3000

To sum: You have no idea what "average" means.

 

[Death Dealer]

Tell that to all the single parents who don't make enough to get it. FFS.

Spending 50k a year for daycare sounds ludicrous. They must have 5 infant children or are going to some very tony establishment in NYC where the kids get organically crafted artisan carrot sticks for snack time and get serenaded by violin players at nap time.
For 50k a year, you can hire a live-in nanny.

As for the scenario in the OP:

I would not consider 200k a year "rich". But it's definitely on the verge of leaving the middle class. As someone noted, that household income puts you in about the top 5% of homes in the US. I know in the scheme of things, 200k isn't shit. They probably do feel average compared to families making a million or more a year. But I'd argue there is a larger difference between a family getting by on 40k a year compared to the 200k family, than the 200k family compared to a million a year income family. Once you get to a certain threshold, all the extra money is mostly for unimportant things like fancy cars, multiple vacation homes, lavish vacations, designer clothers and other consumer fluff.

They can afford more expensive toys. The 200k family has to take a local skiing vacation. The million dollar one can afford Switzerland.

The 16 year old in the 200k family gets a nice used, or cheap new car. The 1000k family can afford buying their kid a new Range Rover for the birthday present.

The 200k family can afford public universities. The 1000k family can afford private school tuition.

It's just a matter of scale.

But a family making 40k a year are literally trying to make ends meet. They may be forced with tough choices. Fix the car or pay for Johnny's braces ? Most years, they don't ever have extra money to take a family vacation. They buy used clothes, clip coupons, their kids will need student loans/grants to afford college. A layoff could mean them being homeless.

200k a year family has it pretty good. It''s not lifestyles of the rich and famous, but
they are not struggling. They just have to live within a budget.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

People make the mistake of assuming that the reaction normal people have to higher costs of living is to raise their spending to maintain the same standard of living. In reality, the thing that happens is that when costs of living go up, the standard of living goes DOWN. Saying the costs of living are higher in X city SHOULD mean that your standard of living has had to go down to account for the increase in costs, because that's how it works for the average person. Saying "oh well the costs of living out here are so high that I couldn't possibly live on less..." is wrong. It means that your standard of living is even further out of line with the standard of living of the people around you than it would be in a place where living is cheaper.

 

[mr stroke]

Be able to retire, sure. I'm not arguing about that. But retire early? I think I'd have to disagree there.

By retire early I mean anything under the age of 63

 

[Circle Jerk]

There are a lot of people in this thread that are just making the worst financial decisions and using that as justification for not being well off or rich. Stop ignoring your shitty life decisions, and start a budget and marvel at the amount of money you suddenly have.

 

[Death Dealer]

A 200k a year income is rich because it's a value that allows you to increase your monetary power much more easily than it would below it. Yeah, 200k/year isn't 1 mil/year or more but unlike earning 50k/year, it puts you into a position where you can earn money very easily and become wealthy/stable with proper management. It's very difficult to do so at 50k, nigh impossible at times. However, at 200k, you have a lot more room to do so as long as you aren't inflating your lifestyle.

I agree with you. And this is what I was trying to say in my last post.

 

[mm04]

One thing that seems getting lost in this thread repeatedly is that salaries are not in a vacuum. They rise and fall depending on where the actual position is located, just like cost of living. For the Californians posting in this thread, we live in a place where our cost of living is generally higher. Therefore, salaries here are generally higher. If your household is earning $200k in CA, your household is not going to be paid $200k in most other states for the same exact positions. Likely, it would be significantly less and in line with whatever the market value is for that area. So the entire thought process of what others could do with $200k annually regardless of any other factors, is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Average middle class neighborhood. =! $3000 Mortgage.

The median mortgage payment is about $1300 a month, and the average is about $1600 or so. You're at $3000. $3000

To sum: You have no idea what "average" means.

It does in CA. A 600k fixed 30 year loan is about $3000 a month payment. What you describe is about a 300k house in CA and that is not an average middle class neighborhood cost.

With the way my expenses are budgeted one a $110k income in Philadelphia, I am able to put ~$20k per year into retirement funds. That's enough to retire two years early. Now, assume you add $30k per year for childcare, and another $30k per year for the higher cost of living expenses, you should be able to near the same thing in california with a family of four with an income of $170k

Are you factoring in that you need to save more to retire in a place that has higher living costs? What it costs to retire in one place is not the same it costs to retire in another.

 

[Divvy]

People make the mistake of assuming that the reaction normal people have to higher costs of living is to raise their spending to maintain the same standard of living. In reality, the thing that happens is that when costs of living go up, the standard of living goes DOWN. Saying the costs of living are higher in X city SHOULD mean that your standard of living has had to go down to account for the increase in costs, because that's how it works for the average person. Saying "oh well the costs of living out here are so high that I couldn't possibly live on less..." is wrong. It means that your standard of living is even further out of line with the standard of living of the people around you than it would be in a place where living is cheaper.

You are assuming that the median income outside of that area is the same as inside which is not true. Jobs in that area will pay more than those outside. In the case of cities, cost of living is higher but so is median income.

 

[Death Dealer]

There are a lot of people in this thread that are just making the worst financial decisions and using that as justification for not being well off or rich. Stop ignoring your shitty life decisions, and start a budget and marvel at the amount of money you suddenly have.

If you're not rich, blame yourself right ?
Lulz

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

You are assuming that the median income outside of that area is the same as inside which is not true. Jobs in that area will pay more than those outside. In the case of cities, cost of living is higher but so is median income.

I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that typically in places with the highest cost of living the rise in median income does not match the amount of increase in the cost of living. Which it typically doesn't.

 

[ElNino]

Average middle class neighborhood. =! $3000 Mortgage.

The median mortgage payment is about $1300 a month, and the average is about $1600 or so. You're at $3000. $3000

To sum: You have no idea what "average" means.

It depends where you live.

The average cost of housing of Toronto is almost $500k, so a $3000/month mortgage could be considered average. This is why we bought our house outside of the city and commute in for work... although our mortgage is still more than $2000/month.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Spending 50k a year for daycare sounds ludicrous. They must have 5 infant children or are going to some very tony establishment in NYC where the kids get organically crafted artisan carrot sticks for snack time and get serenaded by violin players at nap time.
For 50k a year, you can hire a live-in nanny.

It's not a real number. I was using simple numbers to illustrate a point.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

To me, rich has always been:

1) No debt.
2) Not spending more than you make.
3) Feeling prepared for accidents (Medical, home, job).

People who make more and instantly spend more, won't feel rich.

 

[pj]

The reason that medians and averages don't agree with posters in this thread is that statistics include the brown people areas.

200k being middle class in Manhattan is probably true for everyone below 90th street. A $3000/mo mortgage is probably average in CA in neighborhoods where there aren't bars on all the windows.

 

[mr stroke]

Spending 50k a year for daycare sounds ludicrous. They must have 5 infant children or are going to some very tony establishment in NYC where the kids get organically crafted artisan carrot sticks for snack time and get serenaded by violin players at nap time.
For 50k a year, you can hire a live-in nanny.

As for the scenario in the OP:

I would not consider 200k a year "rich". But it's definitely on the verge of leaving the middle class. As someone noted, that household income puts you in about the top 5% of homes in the US. I know in the scheme of things, 200k isn't shit. They probably do feel average compared to families making a million or more a year. But I'd argue there is a larger difference between a family getting by on 40k a year compared to the 200k family, than the 200k family compared to a million a year income family. Once you get to a certain threshold, all the extra money is mostly for unimportant things like fancy cars, multiple vacation homes, lavish vacations, designer clothers and other consumer fluff.

They can afford more expensive toys. The 200k family has to take a local skiing vacation. The million dollar one can afford Switzerland.

The 16 year old in the 200k family gets a nice used, or cheap new car. The 1000k family can afford buying their kid a new Range Rover for the birthday present.

The 200k family can afford public universities. The 1000k family can afford private school tuition.

It's just a matter of scale.

But a family making 40k a year are literally trying to make ends meet. They may be forced with tough choices. Fix the car or pay for Johnny's braces ? Most years, they don't ever have extra money to take a family vacation. They buy used clothes, clip coupons, their kids will need student loans/grants to afford college. A layoff could mean them being homeless.

200k a year family has it pretty good. It''s not lifestyles of the rich and famous, but
they are not struggling. They just have to live within a budget.

+1
good post

 

[Forearms]

If you're not rich, blame yourself right ?
Lulz

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying there are probably plenty of people here on the internet that are complaining about being poor while making horrible financial decisions.

Eating out every day, drinking Starbucks coffee every day, buying all the latest console games, etc, all adds up. If a person has become accustomed to doing these things and feel that this is the way it's supposed to be, then there isn't anything to bitch about. These things aren't 100% necessary to be happy, or survive.

Many people are in control of their own financial success, but choose not to be because of poor lifestyle choices.

 

[Circle Jerk]

If you're not rich, blame yourself right ?
Lulz

I'm talking about the people who are making 200k a year and do things like buy houses they can't afford, not paying attention to the money they spend on a daily basis, or buying cars you don't need not those who are actually poor.

 

[Divvy]

I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that typically in places with the highest cost of living the rise in median income does not match the amount of increase in the cost of living. Which it typically doesn't.

Source?

 

[AranhaHunter]

I agree that 200k a year is not rich.

 

[ElNino]

There are a lot of people in this thread that are just making the worst financial decisions and using that as justification for not being well off or rich. Stop ignoring your shitty life decisions, and start a budget and marvel at the amount of money you suddenly have.

Do you consider having children and buying a house in a safe neighbourhood that will allow them to go to a decent public school a poor financial decision?

I'm not saying I haven't made any poor financial decisions because I certainly have, but the main reason I do not consider myself "rich" is due to expenses for my home and family.

 

[mr stroke]

Average middle class neighborhood. =! $3000 Mortgage.

The median mortgage payment is about $1300 a month, and the average is about $1600 or so. You're at $3000. $3000

To sum: You have no idea what "average" means.

Please take location into consideration.


Sure $3000 a month in Montana, Texas, or New Mexico will buy me a mansion. $3000 a month in New York, San Francisco, Toronto, or LA will buy me a middle class home in a middle class neighborhood

 

[bill0527]

Spending 50k a year for daycare sounds ludicrous. They must have 5 infant children or are going to some very tony establishment in NYC where the kids get organically crafted artisan carrot sticks for snack time and get serenaded by violin players at nap time.
For 50k a year, you can hire a live-in nanny.

As for the scenario in the OP:

I would not consider 200k a year "rich". But it's definitely on the verge of leaving the middle class. As someone noted, that household income puts you in about the top 5% of homes in the US. I know in the scheme of things, 200k isn't shit. They probably do feel average compared to families making a million or more a year. But I'd argue there is a larger difference between a family getting by on 40k a year compared to the 200k family, than the 200k family compared to a million a year income family. Once you get to a certain threshold, all the extra money is mostly for unimportant things like fancy cars, multiple vacation homes, lavish vacations, designer clothers and other consumer fluff.

They can afford more expensive toys. The 200k family has to take a local skiing vacation. The million dollar one can afford Switzerland.

The 16 year old in the 200k family gets a nice used, or cheap new car. The 1000k family can afford buying their kid a new Range Rover for the birthday present.

The 200k family can afford public universities. The 1000k family can afford private school tuition.

It's just a matter of scale.

But a family making 40k a year are literally trying to make ends meet. They may be forced with tough choices. Fix the car or pay for Johnny's braces ? Most years, they don't ever have extra money to take a family vacation. They buy used clothes, clip coupons, their kids will need student loans/grants to afford college. A layoff could mean them being homeless.

200k a year family has it pretty good. It''s not lifestyles of the rich and famous, but
they are not struggling. They just have to live within a budget.

Good post.

But the 200k a year family still has to make choices, the choices just aren't as difficult as the braces vs. car choice. They don't have "fuck you" money, but they do have enough money to both fix the car and pay for Johnny's braces.

Even when I was dirt poor, to me, being rich is having "fuck you" money. Enough money to tell anyone, anytime, anyplace, "fuck you". At 200k a year, you've still got a boss, you still answer to someone, and you still have to kiss someone's ass if it means saving your job.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Source?

I should rephrase I guess. They are equal in a relative sense, there are just timing differentials. As costs of living increase typically wages do not increase at the same time, whether or not they eventually equal out. There's the lag. It's inaccurate for me to say that incomes do not equal costs of living. Efficient market theory says otherwise. What I was getting at was more the lag between when costs of living go up, and the time that your income actually begins to rise. For the family making $40k, when the cost of living goes up, they have to cut their spending until their income goes up, which tends to take longer. For a person making $200k, they have enough of a buffer to maintain their standard of living throughout the change in cost of living.

 

[Yoritomo]

If you're not rich, blame yourself right ?
Lulz

Yup.

I'm the sole income provider for our household of 5 and make just under 80k, raise will put me at 81 k in a few weeks.

We live on less than 50k a year, the rest gets saved. No debt, all cars paid off. Non-appreciating assets are purchased cash (this includes vehicles). We clip coupons, wait for deals, plan meals, and budget every damned thing we can.

When I make more money will I buy more shit? No, we will save it. When the girls college investments are funded to the point that we feel we're comfortable and when my wife starts up work again we might move to something larger than our 1900 square foot house, or we may even move to something slightly smaller if it means a better school district.

I spent 6 years in college for a CS degree because I worked full time the entire time, I graduated with 0 debt. Maintain 0 debt and aggressively budget. People have no concept of living below their means.

In about 10 years I project our household income will probably be around 140-150k a year since my wife will be working and my income will slightly increase over that time. Due to inflation we'll try living on less than half that.

Having 3 million in the bank by the time I retire in addition to 401k and pension from work?

Yup, people are poor because they think making more money means buying more shit.

I do live in Texas though so you can translate my 80k income to 120k in a more expensive area.

 

[Sobriquet]

Average middle class neighborhood. =! $3000 Mortgage.

The median mortgage payment is about $1300 a month, and the average is about $1600 or so. You're at $3000. $3000

To sum: You have no idea what "average" means.

I don't know where he lives, but here in LA, the average house price is damn near $600,000.

 

[Divvy]

I should rephrase I guess. They are equal in a relative sense, there are just timing differentials. As costs of living increase typically wages do not increase at the same time, whether or not they eventually equal out. There's the lag. It's inaccurate for me to say that incomes do not equal costs of living. Efficient market theory says otherwise. What I was getting at was more the lag between when costs of living go up, and the time that your income actually begins to rise. For the family making $40k, when the cost of living goes up, they have to cut their spending until their income goes up, which tends to take longer. For a person making $200k, they have enough of a buffer to maintain their standard of living throughout the change in cost of living.

You do have a point. Increases in cost of living do disproportionately affect those with lower income. However, I'm not sure how that relates to living in a major city being inherently more expensive than living outside of the city. In absolute terms, income in a city greater, but so is the cost of living. Fluctuations in that cost may affect the higher earners less, but the purchasing power of that money is still less than those elsewhere.

 

[Globehopper]

Your scenario is a little more restricting than mine would be, sure. But I see two ways I could handle it.

The first way is to move. Buy a 130k house in Charlotte, NC (that's where I live). Spend 10k on moving expenses. Sell a bunch of crap you don't need that might not fit in your new house, make back 5k.

You now have 365k in the bank. You can either rent out your first house or put it on the market. Spend 25k fixing it up (give or take), you have 340k left.

Get less expensive insurance. 1300/month is way too much; 500 should cover you and the kids. You're not working so you don't need daycare. If you rented your house out, congratulations! Put your remaining 300k in a conservative investment account, generate 20-30k per year in interest, and use that along with your rental income for a fairly stress free (financially) life.

This plan will not work.

First, show me a "conservative" investment that will consistently return 7-10%pa please. Here in Canada, a "high-interest" savings account will get you between 1% and 2.5%. GICs (basically CDs) will give you around 3.5% for a five-year one (ie. your money's tied up for five years). Bonds and index-linked mutual funds are inconsistent and won't make you much (they might, depending on the state of the market, but you certainly can't rely on it for income). Stocks are high-risk. And finally, you have to pay tax on any investment income when you realize it.

And as for "rental income"... I've been a landlord for 8 years on a house I'm paying the mortgage on. I haven't made a profit once in those 8 years. It would be VERY surprising if he could rent out his house for enough to even cover the mortgage and taxes, never mind maintenance, HOA fees etc, and then you have deadbeat tenants (which has happened to me twice now). You have to repaint and change carpets etc between tenants too. If you're an absent landlord, then you almost certainly have to pay a management company too (some states have laws to enforce that). There's no way he's making any money from renting out a mortgaged $350k house - in fact he's probably paying a few thousand a year out of pocket.

So I'd say given your setup, far from a "stress-free" income, his actual income is likely to be right around $0.

 

[Uncompromisable]

51 and 3 months.

Of course you can retire early on 200k. There is a broad range of incomes with which you can likely retire early, with the right planning and some sacrifices. That planning becomes significantly easier--and the sacrifices lessen--when you earn 200k.

Could you go over the calculation? How much are they retiring on per year?

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

You do have a point. Increases in cost of living do disproportionately affect those with lower income. However, I'm not sure how that relates to living in a major city being inherently more expensive than living outside of the city. In absolute terms, income in a city greater, but so is the cost of living. Fluctuations in that cost may affect the higher earners less, but the purchasing power of that money is still less than those elsewhere.

Yeah, not gonna argue that. But I don't imagine there is anywhere in the USA where the cost of living is so much higher than the average that you couldn't live more than comfortably on $200k income.

 

[Cyan]

Could you go over the calculation? How much are they retiring on per year?

Nah, that wasn't a real answer. I was trying to show that he was demanding a very specific answer to a very general question.

 

[Divvy]

Yeah, not gonna argue that. But I don't imagine there is anywhere in the USA where the cost of living is so much higher than the average that you couldn't live more than comfortably on $200k income.

I agree. 200k is enough for a modest sized family to live comfortably virtually anywhere. I just wouldn't equate living comfortably in an expensive city with being rich.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

This plan will not work.

First, show me a "conservative" investment that will consistently return 7-10%pa please.

Well.. the annualized growth on the DJIA, S&P, and NASDAQ are all above 8% from 1980-2010. So index funds over a long term.

I agree. 200k is enough for a modest sized family to live comfortably virtually anywhere. I just wouldn't equate living comfortably in an expensive city with being rich.

Yeah, it's pretty much come down to a battle of semantics at that point. For many people "living comfortably" is rich, even if you don't have a super high standard of living for your given area.

 

[Cyan]

Well.. the annualized growth on the DJIA, S&P, and NASDAQ are all above 8% from 1980-2010. So index funds over a long term.

Neither conservative nor consistent.

 

[ThLunarian]

This plan will not work.

First, show me a "conservative" investment that will consistently return 7-10%pa please. Here in Canada, a "high-interest" savings account will get you between 1% and 2.5%. GICs (basically CDs) will give you around 3.5% for a five-year one (ie. your money's tied up for five years). Bonds and index-linked mutual funds are inconsistent and won't make you much (they might, depending on the state of the market, but you certainly can't rely on it for income). Stocks are high-risk. And finally, you have to pay tax on any investment income when you realize it.

And as for "rental income"... I've been a landlord for 8 years on a house I'm paying the mortgage on. I haven't made a profit once in those 8 years. It would be VERY surprising if he could rent out his house for enough to even cover the mortgage and taxes, never mind maintenance, HOA fees etc, and then you have deadbeat tenants (which has happened to me twice now). You have to repaint and change carpets etc between tenants too. If you're an absent landlord, then you almost certainly have to pay a management company too (some states have laws to enforce that). There's no way he's making any money from renting out a mortgaged $350k house - in fact he's probably paying a few thousand a year out of pocket.

So I'd say given your setup, far from a "stress-free" income, his actual income is likely to be right around $0.

I'll concede that my knowledge of investment yields is kind of weak, so yeah he may have to get a job however you cut it. 300k in the bank is still a formidable safety net, even if it's only making you 10k a year in interest.

I've been a landlord for 7 years myself though, and depending on his loan terms and local rental market he could easily make a profit. Hell, one of my properties is on an awful ARM currently at 9% and I've still managed to break even on it since I bought it, including some pricey repairs.

And even if I'm wrong, there's always the option to sell. With 300k available you could always sell at a loss to get rid of the mortgage payment. Or just wait it out; you have enough to live on for about 5 years.

And just imagine what 500k could do for you if you weren't burdened with an expensive house located in a market with a high cost of living.

I reiterate my original point that 500k is enough to be set for life for almost anyone, if they know how to use it and don't have insane debt already.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Neither conservative nor consistent.

True, they aren't conservative because there is a possibility of principal loss. But they have been fairly consistent over their lifespans if you take a long term view, even though that's absolutely no guarantee.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

"Rich" isn't making 200k a year.

It takes years of savings to eventually be "rich" from that type of income.

Especially since most people making that kind of money live in expensive areas, and can't afford to live far from a downtown.

I've been making close to 200k for about 6 years.. was making close to 60-100k for the 5 years of my career before that.

I have a decent amount in retirement.. own a home.. have enjoyed a lot of "toys", etc.. but I'm still far from "rich" at 33.

But I'm also epically far from "just making it".. so agree that some of the comments in that article are ridiculous.

 

[Cyan]

True, they aren't conservative because there is a possibility of principal loss. But they have been fairly consistent over their lifespans if you take a long term view, even though that's absolutely no guarantee.

In the long term, yes, but that's not really relevant in the example we were discussing.

 

[Archer]

To me, rich has always been:

1) No debt.
2) Not spending more than you make.
3) Feeling prepared for accidents (Medical, home, job).

People who make more and instantly spend more, won't feel rich.

this. life is good, imo, with this in mind.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying there are probably plenty of people here on the internet that are complaining about being poor while making horrible financial decisions.

Eating out every day, drinking Starbucks coffee every day, buying all the latest console games, etc, all adds up. If a person has become accustomed to doing these things and feel that this is the way it's supposed to be, then there isn't anything to bitch about. These things aren't 100% necessary to be happy, or survive.

Many people are in control of their own financial success, but choose not to be because of poor lifestyle choices.

Yep. It's called rampant consumerism.

Live within or below your means.

 

[Death Dealer]

I'm talking about the people who are making 200k a year and do things like buy houses they can't afford, not paying attention to the money they spend on a daily basis, or buying cars you don't need not those who are actually poor.

Ok thanks for clarifying that. And I will agree you. People do blow way too much money. There was a recent study that showed the average person spends something like $1000 a year on Starbucks. All of those things add up, and if that money were saved and invested, will amount to something substantial over the years. The post I originally replied to sounded a bit like Herman Cain's philosophy, even if that wasn't your intention. Most people, even if they live frugally and below their means, will not become rich or well off, for the reasons Shouta outlined.

 

[Enron]

"Rich" isn't making 200k a year.

It takes years of savings to eventually be "rich" from that type of income.

Especially since most people making that kind of money live in expensive areas, and can't afford to live far from a downtown.

I've been making close to 200k for about 6 years.. was making close to 60-100k for the 5 years of my career before that.

I have a decent amount in retirement.. own a home.. have enjoyed a lot of "toys", etc.. but I'm still far from "rich" at 33.

But I'm also epically far from "just making it".. so agree that some of the comments in that article are ridiculous.

Prepare to be shredded

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Prepare to be shredded

I don't see why.. it takes time, it truly does.

And shit happens.. and when shit happens to people with high incomes, they tend to pay out a lot more than other people.

I also paid much higher taxes than the average person most of that time.. and still do.

Bought a home in 2008.. my first home.. I was 29 years old.. a hard working young person. Do I get a $8,000 credit? Nope.. make too much money.

Do I even get to write off all of my interest? Nope.. make too much money.

I also supported my ex-wife for the 3 years I was married.. and then got divorced. Raped my finances far more than anyone making less money would have.

Income is higher, where you live tends to be more expensive.. setbacks tend to be greater, etc. Do I have a lot of emergency cash? Yes.. do I have a decent sized retirmement fund? Yes.

Still not "rich" IMO. And no, I'm not complaining about paying more taxes.. I support the concept.. but people do need to understand that unless you are a "business owner" or own a lot of property, people making ~100-200k from SKILLED LABOR do not enjoy the same benefits of the business owner "rich" people.

 

[Cyan]

I also paid much higher taxes than the average person most of that time.. and still do.

Should probably see if you can get your paycheck lowered... maybe drop down to a lower tax bracket.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Should probably see if you can get your paycheck lowered... maybe drop down to a lower tax bracket.

I'm not complaining about paying taxes. Just pointing out that unless you are a business owner or have tons of other write-offs, you actually DO pay higher taxes (and tax rates) as a skilled laborer making a lot of money.

 

[Stet]

That's not how tax brackets work.

thatsthejoke.jpg

 

[Marty Chinn]

That's not how tax brackets work.

He was joking. He was referencing someone who thought that's how it worked and tried it.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

thatsthejoke.jpg

Yeah, I edited that

Most people really have no clue how tax brackets work... "If I make another $1,000 this year I'll make less overall cuz my tax bracket goes up!!" (derp, you don't have a tax bracket, your money falls into various brackets)

Or "It discourages people from working harder because they make less!" Derp derp

 

[Enron]

I don't see why.. it takes time, it truly does.

And shit happens.. and when shit happens to people with high incomes, they tend to pay out a lot more than other people.

I also paid much higher taxes than the average person most of that time.. and still do.

Bought a home in 2008.. my first home.. I was 29 years old.. a hard working young person. Do I get a $8,000 credit? Nope.. make too much money.

Do I even get to write off all of my interest? Nope.. make too much money.

I also supported my ex-wife for the 3 years I was married.. and then got divorced. Raped my finances far more than anyone making less money would have.

Income is higher, where you live tends to be more expensive.. setbacks tend to be greater, etc. Do I have a lot of emergency cash? Yes.. do I have a decent sized retirmement fund? Yes.

Still not "rich" IMO. And no, I'm not complaining about paying more taxes.. I support the concept.. but people do need to understand that unless you are a "business owner" or own a lot of property, people making ~100-200k from SKILLED LABOR do not enjoy the same benefits of the business owner "rich" people.

Oh no, I agree with you. However much of the board is quite hostile to this sort of talk.

 

[Smelly Tramp]

why are people talking about college costs.

i'm at uni in the UK and will leave with a shit load of debt. and i fully intend to join the working world as soon as possible and pay it off.

fuck paying for your kids, if i have kids they can do exactly what i did. otherwise they'll end up exactly the same as all the other kids at my uni who get their tuition and accommodation paid for them, spoilt brats that are unable to budget.