Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

You seem to be seeing the number and ignoring everything else people are saying, not to mention completely disregarding the concept of "standard of living".

Being paid 100k a year, even in San Francisco or NYC, unless you're a crazy Catholic with 8 kids still puts you better off than 95% of the people in the US, 99% of the people in the world today, and 99.999999999% of the population in human history.

If you want to live like a king on 100k/year, move to Detroit.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Most of us who worked so fucking hard and long to make six figures aren't willing to either.

I agree. You worked really hard to be born in a liberal democracy in the Western world in the late 20th century.

 

[RoninChaos]

You do realize you wouldn't be paying for insurance and neither would your employer, as it would be government provided, right? There would be no 1196/yr charge

And you think the employer is going to pass along that money?

 

[AlphaDump]

Don't worry, you're not alone. Most of us who worked so fucking hard and long to make six figures aren't willing to either.

that or he had a baseline established to support his family that is now being pulled out from him unwillingly.

 

[Euphoria14]

You could ask. It's an average involving local, out of state, and private universities.

The average for public, in-state universities is a little over $9K a year. So you'd be looking at something closer to $36K a year, if your kids only go to a local state school. I didn't want to presume on your children's future abilities, so I picked an average of the three.

Bernie's plan doesn't cover private universities though, so his figure is bogus. $36,000 is currently 6/7 years of savings for me, compared to $5,000/year for the next 50.

Bernie's plan costs me no matter how anyone slices it. It is the equivalent of me taking my recent promotion and tossing it out the window.

 

[samn]

I know it probably makes me sound like a dick, but I am not willing to give up what I worked so hard for the last 10 years to just give it away.

I am only "well off" because we worked incredibly hard to get there.

A $5,000 increase will cripple us, especially since half our income is untaxed anyways since she gets paid through Medicaid (she is a self employed in home nurse). We end up owning like $4,000/year for taxes come tax time, which is part of why I need my $5,00-$6,000/year saving ability.

Bernie makes me have to lose some of what I have. If Bernie's plan was a thing 3 years ago, I wouldn't own a home today.

Oh alright, let's let the poor die without healthcare then.

After all, they obviously don't work as hard as you do.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Being paid 100k a year, even in San Francisco or NYC, unless you're a crazy Catholic with 8 kids still puts you better off than 95% of the people in the US, 99% of the people in the world today, and 99.999999999% of the population in human history.

If you want to live like a king on 100k/year, move to Detroit.



I agree. You worked really hard to be born in a liberal democracy in the Western world in the late 20th century.

100k a year between two adults isn't that hard.

 

[JesseEwiak]

100k a year between two adults isn't that hard.

Yes, it really is. Step out of your bubble.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Yeah...no. I don't think I can afford that kind of tax hike unless my wife wanted to go back to work. That would be disastrous for our finances.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

And you think the employer is going to pass along that money?

I don't think I quite understand the question. When you're enrolled in an employer provided healthcare plan, you pay an amount per month automatically for that. If everyone was ensured by the government, employers wouldn't need to provide healthcare, and that paycheck deduction would go away

Being paid 100k a year, even in San Francisco or NYC, unless you're a crazy Catholic with 8 kids still puts you better off than 95% of the people in the US, 99% of the people in the world today, and 99.999999999% of the population in human history.

If you want to live like a king on 100k/year, move to Detroit.

I agree. You worked really hard to be born in a liberal democracy in the Western world in the late 20th century.

Not only are you still not reading what people are saying, but you're pulling the whole "1st world problems" thing which effectively shuts down any discussion in this thread

 

[Mael]

Oh alright, let's let the poor die without healthcare then.

After all, they obviously don't work as hard as you do.

I would wager there's a middle ground between putting Euphoria14 in the poor house and letting the poor die in the street.

I don't think I quite understand the question. When you're enrolled in an employer provided healthcare plan, you pay an amount per month automatically for that. If everyone was ensured by the government, employers wouldn't need to provide healthcare, and that paycheck deduction would go away

The part that is taken from your paycheck would go into your paycheck, the part that the employers currently pay would go into the employers wallets.

 

[Spinluck]

Still voting for him. Worth it in the long run.

 

[samn]

I would wager there's a middle ground between putting Euphoria14 in the poor house and letting the poor die in the street.

He won't be in the poor house.

Someone get out that Wall Street Journal collage of suffering high income families.

 

[RedSparc]

Bernie's plan doesn't cover private universities though, so his figure is bogus. $36,000 is currently 6/7 years of savings for me, compared to $5,000/year for the next 50.

Bernie's plan costs me no matter how anyone slices it. It is the equivalent of me taking my recent promotion and tossing it out the window.

And if you get cancer all that life savings disappears rather quickly too. But your not going to get cancer or anything else because you are invincible right?

If you know the next 50 years are going to go by without anything happening to you, your wife or your kids then yeah, this is probably not good for you, but there is like a 1:100000000000 chance of that happening.

 

[WonkyPanda]

I agree. You worked really hard to be born in a liberal democracy in the Western world in the late 20th century.

Yes, it really is. Step out of your bubble.

So, with your sarcastic comment here, I am a bit confused. One doesn't have to work hard to make 100k a year between two people? We've worked so little to be born in the US, right? The privilege has been handed to us. The privilege all americans have, I assume?

 

[Lumination]

The part that is taken from your paycheck would go into your paycheck, the part that the employers currently pay would go into the employers wallets.

Agreed. I'm in favor of the plan and I think it's too optimistic to think the employer's costs would trickle down. I don't think it's safe to assume it won't.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The part that is taken from your paycheck would go into your paycheck, the part that the employers currently pay would go into the employers wallets.

And when people look at their W2's, knowing what their salary is suppose to be, and see a mysterious chunk not there for any accountable reason, then what?

 

[Marty Chinn]

I don't think I quite understand the question. When you're enrolled in an employer provided healthcare plan, you pay an amount per month automatically for that. If everyone was ensured by the government, employers wouldn't need to provide healthcare, and that paycheck deduction would go away

Not everyone takes a paycheck deduction and even when they do, that deduction is small so unless the employer passes on the savings, then the employee is hit twice under this and the savings don't come close to the increase in tax.

 

[AlphaDump]

And when people look at their W2's, knowing what their salary is suppose to be, and see a mysterious chunk not there for any accountable reason, then what?

you say that to your employer as if you are now owed something, and they would literally laugh you out the door is what.


Not to mention, after getting free college and healthcare, now you want more money?

 

[Mael]

And when people look at their W2's, knowing what their salary is suppose to be, and see a mysterious chunk not there for any accountable reason, then what?

The part that the employers pay shouldn't appear on their W2 as it's the part the employers is paying.
If it was appearing on their W2, it's money taking from the employees NOT the employers part of the healthcare plan.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Not only are you still not reading what people are saying, but you're pulling the whole "1st world problems" thing which effectively shuts down any discussion in this thread

Some things deserve to get shut down, including people acting like making 100k in a major city is some sort of poverty wages and I say this as somebody who thinks Bernie's tax plan is kind of crappy.

 

[Lumination]

And when people look at their W2's, knowing what their salary is suppose to be, and see a mysterious chunk not there for any accountable reason, then what?

Nonono. Employer-sponsored healthcare is paid by both employer AND employee. What you see on your W2 is what you pay. Your employer also has their own cost. What we're saying is that you will get your healthcare deductible back, but your employer will most likely keep his as well.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

ITT: People looking at tax increases and having a knee jerk reaction, without realizing many people will actually be saving money.

LMAO

My employer covers my health insurance, I already went to college and paid off all the loans I accumulated, and oh I don't see a plan to save Social Security in this tax plan.

What the fuck am I getting from this tax plan except more of my income evaporating?

How about this Bernie, make my college retroactively free and refund all the money I paid back in loans, then I'll think about your tax plan.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

The price to pay so my fellow countrymen get affordable healthcare and education with less the potential risks of going bankrupt due to high medical bills? I understand and I'm sorta alright.

When the average median household is only a little more than 50k with barely $5000 in savings, just 1-2 big unforseen expense from financial ruin we are really in a bad place. You would need to drag us kicking and screaming unfortunately to catch up with the other 1st counties in terms of having an actually healthcare system.

 

[Goro Majima]

Showed this to a few of my Bernie supporting friends and they were quick to point out its not true and those making below 250k a year won't see a difference

I guess that's where I'm lost because most of what I've read has been about how the 1% own nearly half the wealth in the US and how Bernie isn't looking to really do much to even the upper middle class. Wealth inequality is a huge problem and I think nearly everyone here can agree with that.

Then the details come out and basically the entire middle class gets a huge tax increase with the idea that your employer will pay you more to offset the increase. This is assuming that they don't already have to pay for the increased wages for the minimum wage hike. An increase from $10 to $15 per hour would be about $10k a year - nearly wiping out whatever savings the business would get from not paying for one person's health care. So any business that has a significant number of low wage employees could likely not pass these savings directly onto their salaried employees.

So ultimately this plan just pits the middle class against the lower class which is almost always a losing proposition politically...and not what a lot of people thought they were signing up for by supporting Bernie.

 

[JesseEwiak]

LMAO

My employer covers my health insurance, I already went to college and paid off all the loans I accumulated, and oh I don't see a plan to save Social Security in this tax plan.

What the fuck am I getting from this tax plan except more of my income evaporating?

How about this Bernie, make my college retroactively free and refund all the money I paid back in loans, then I'll think about your tax plan.

To be fair to Bernie, he is lifting the FICA cap to expand Social Security.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Well, in Scandinavia after our taxes are paid we have about the same amount of money as Americans after taxes. Wages are really high here, so it offsets itself.

I too think that wages will increase in the US, because capitalistic hierarchies tend to work that way, if the policies are in place for it. I believe the US would adapt.

When we have increased the minimum wage in Scandinavia, almost like clockwork, higher wages across all levels adjusts accordingly. The pay ceiling always moves, and that is natural in a globalized economy that wants to run on being a nation of highly educated workers with a high level of expertise. This is how America remains competitive. It demands a sacrifice and commitment to education.



I believe there will be massive cost savings with a significantly improved welfare state. Billions could be saved, on less crime, desperation, homeless people, violence, overpopulated prisons. Those savings will help many people. The best part is that it is a bi-product of giving poor people access to health care and education. It absolves ignorance, it lowers violence. Nobody disagrees with that.

But I am concerned. I am concerned because it would require many people to take the long perspective. And if you are living from paycheck to paycheck right now, I can see that the wishy-washy promise that wages will go up at some point, is not a comforting soluble.

But what I will propose is this; In Scandinavia, often when we have introduced systems like this, we don't just hit you with it 100% on day 1. It has a roll-out effect over a number of years. Like Bernies plan with minimum wage. It's not supposed to hit 15 dollar minimum wage before 2022 or something like that.
I believe that if we saw these tax hikes, there would also be exemptions.



In Scandinavia we have many tax exemptions! Why? Well, because what is the point of taxing people something they can't afford. exemptions are made to levitate and help people.
So to help business and local entrepreneurs, it is normal to get tax exemptions on things related to your business and employees. If you are a business owner, it incentives to take your profits and stretch them out to grow your business, improve it, hire more staff, than to put it in your pocket and be taxed higher.
It allows small business owners to get tax deductibles on company expenses and services. Have your own freelance business or hair saloon? Tax exemptions for you.

There are tax exemptions for students. for public transportation, for student jobs that allows them to get a better tax break while they are occupied with school.
Seniors have their own tax breaks.


I guess what I am trying to say is this; It's not as scary as it looks. Society will always adjust. Think about how much money gets pulled into the public sector from this. Than in itself revitalizes a dying sector with many jobs and a higher standard of infrastructure.


I share Mael's concerns about if many Americans want to believe in the bounty that can be had. Because this will take time to show its full effects. It will take an entire generation for the American landscape to be fully changed, because the people who have fallen through the system, have children who are bound to- statistically, have really poor odds at a decent life, need to grow up and against all odds change their lives. It will only happen with education and health care.
I think America needs it, and the people deserves it. I think Europe needs it, because we're going right over what is happening, and we need America to show some progression due to our crisis. We need to be reminded that we need to invest in a better oiling of the machine, instead of trying to produce more and more on a old outdated machine that produces worse and worse results.
It's a commitment. It's a statement and it's taking a chance. Because nobody knows how it will play out in the US. The US is not like Scandinavia nor any other country. There are millions of ways this could go. And along with the great infrastructure rebuilding project there is potential for a different America.
It's very hard to think it is possible. In 4 years? In 8? Will people still tell others to pipe down, and ask for gradual change. Or is jumping into this with two feet the way!? Americans will know what is best for their country, but in the inequality is reaching scary levels.

 

[A Penguin]

Some things deserve to get shut down, including people acting like making 100k in a major city is some sort of poverty wages and I say this as somebody who thinks Bernie's tax plan is kind of crappy.

Where did anyone argue 100k=poverty? It's not a terrible living, yes, but it's not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Antiwhippy]

People are focusing on healthcare, but couldn't he just cut out giving free university education? Very few countries with universal healthcare give out free university education, but they at least subsidize it and give a reasonable public option to pay it off that doesn't knee cap you the moment you leave university.

 

[J-Rod]

It should be noted that what the employee pays in employer sponsored healthcare are pre-tax deductions. I would think that is true everywhere, but it certainly is in my state.

 

[samn]

Agreed. I'm in favor of the plan and I think it's too optimistic to think the employer's costs would trickle down. I don't think it's safe to assume it won't.

If a company can afford $50k + $5k for healthcare, and the healthcare part is wiped out, they could try getting away with carrying on paying $50k... but eventually one or two others will have the bright idea of offering the $55k to attract good workers, because hey there's a spare $5k lying around and they need to fill a spot quick, and then others will have to up it again to compete. Ultimately people are paid what the market values them at, and if they become $5k a year less expensive to hire that makes them worth $5k more, all else being equal.

(well, unless they're all in a cartel like with Apple/Google a couple years ago)

 

[ApharmdX]

I know it probably makes me sound like a dick, but I am not willing to give up what I worked so hard for the last 10 years to just give it away.

I am only "well off" because we worked incredibly hard to get there.

A $5,000 increase will cripple us, especially since half our income is untaxed anyways since she gets paid through Medicaid (she is a self employed in home nurse). We end up owning like $4,000/year for taxes come tax time, which is part of why I need my $5,00-$6,000/year saving ability.

Bernie makes me have to lose some of what I have. If Bernie's plan was a thing 3 years ago, I wouldn't own a home today.

This post is, distilled to its pure essence, "fuck you, got mine". The whole country is full of people who work incredibly hard but who aren't as successful, often through no fault of their own (socio-economic background, race, gender, ethnicity, disability). Do you like living in a society where many millions of people are desperate, hungry, under educated, unhealthy, and unhappy? I don't.

Reading this thread is really cringe-worthy because of attitudes like this. As if the country is full of lazy takers... this is the root of bullshit like "the 47%". Ugh.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The part that the employers pay shouldn't appear on their W2 as it's the part the employers is paying.
If it was appearing on their W2, it's money taking from the employees NOT the employers part of the healthcare plan.

Nonono. Employer-sponsored healthcare is paid by both employer AND employee. What you see on your W2 is what you pay. Your employer also has their own cost. What we're saying is that you will get your healthcare deductible back, but your employer will most likely keep his as well.

Ooh ok, yeah I was slightly misunderstanding what you guys were saying. I guess the big question is whether that tax hike would be offset by the amount you're getting back.

Some things deserve to get shut down, including people acting like making 100k in a major city is some sort of poverty wages and I say this as somebody who thinks Bernie's tax plan is kind of crappy.

I don't think anyone implied you'd be poor, but you said upper middle class and another poster used the word rich, which isn't necessarily true depending on where you live

 

[AlphaDump]

Where did anyone argue 100k=poverty? It's not a terrible living, yes, but it's not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

100k=rich, was the argument. It seems like you are being intentionally dishonest, unless you read the thread incorrectly or did no diligence to see what he was responding to.

For those making 100k plus. Remember the median income is like 30k. Income inequality has devastated this country.

But yeah... keep complaining about having to see homeless people in SF.

This is progressive. Dont like it? Well, this is why rich people are generally conservative.
Now you know why people say Bernie is progressive when Hillary isn't.

If you make 100k a year by Many metrics you are rich.

 

[Enduin]

It's a good thing most Americans told Unions to go fucking jump off a cliff and die. Imagine the terrible state we would be in if people actually belonged to an organization that represented their interests and when a UHC plan possibly came into effect said organization could lobby and push companies to pass on whatever savings resulted onto their employees rather than just pocketing it for themselves. Truly frightening, glad that won't ever happen.

Bernie's plan doesn't cover private universities though, so his figure is bogus. $36,000 is currently 6/7 years of savings for me, compared to $5,000/year for the next 50.

Bernie's plan costs me no matter how anyone slices it. It is the equivalent of me taking my recent promotion and tossing it out the window.

You would be getting close to 1k back in rebates from the Carbon Tax from the start in 2017 and close to 2k by 2030. So yeah while you'd still take a hit, it wouldn't be close to 5k for 50 years. More like 3K, so you'd still be coming out on top with 2-3k in savings each year going by your own admission, plus the savings in college tuition.

 

[Lumination]

Ooh ok, yeah I was slightly misunderstanding what you guys were saying. I guess the big question is whether that tax hike would be offset by the amount you're getting back.

That's the rub. For lower income people who are hit by the tax hike the least, this is a possibility. For the people having to pay an additional $10k+, it's not happening.

I do agree something like this needs to be rolled out over a long period. Some people cannot afford to cut their expenses by a 5 digit number overnight.

If a company can afford $50k + $5k for healthcare, and the healthcare part is wiped out, they could try getting away with carrying on paying $50k... but eventually one or two others will have the bright idea of offering the $55k to attract good workers, because hey there's a spare $5k lying around and they need to fill a spot quick, and then others will have to up it again to compete. Ultimately people are paid what the market values them at, and if they become $5k a year less expensive to hire that makes them worth $5k more, all else being equal.

(well, unless they're all in a cartel like with Apple/Google a couple years ago)

I'm not too familiar with the macroeconomics of it all, but does that apply to lower income jobs? I can see this making sense if you're in a high-skill industry, but the workers at McDonald's are not going to have the luxury of choice.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Where did anyone argue 100k=poverty? It's not a terrible living, yes, but it's not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Not poverty, but people in multiple threads on this board do act like a 100k household income in major cities are living right on the edge of total financial collapse and totally ignore the millions of people who survive perfectly fine on far lower wages than them despite even worse socioeconomic conditions.

To put it bluntly, if you make more than 75% of a city and any kind of tax increase will ruin you (I'm not even including Bernie's tax plan in here - I've seen the same kind of comments when any kind of tax increase comes up), then that's on you.

I don't think anyone implied you'd be poor, but you said upper middle class and another poster used the word rich, which isn't necessarily true depending on where you live

100k is upper middle class, even in San Francisco. The median household income is 63k. Simple math does the rest for you there.

 

[A Penguin]

100k=rich, was the argument. It seems like you are being intentionally dishonest, unless you read the thread incorrectly or did no diligence to see what he was responding to.

Yes? That's what I was trying to point out. You and me are on the same page bud

 

[Euphoria14]

Oh alright, let's let the poor die without healthcare then.

After all, they obviously don't work as hard as you do.

Now I see why people dislike Bernie supporters.

It wasn't apparent to me while I was a tough Bernie supporter these last few months.

I was under the impression that I was going to save money with him.

Now I'm the asshole who is willing to let people die.

 

[James93]

That's the rub. For lower income people who are hit by the tax hike the least, this is a possibility. For the people having to pay an additional $10k+, it's not happening.

I do agree something like this needs to be rolled out over a long period. Some people cannot afford to cut their expenses by a 5 digit number overnight.

Thats what i hate about these plans. If you don't fall in the bottom 20-30% of income its a loose-loose.

 

[Mael]

Well, in Scandinavia after our taxes are paid we have about the same amount of money as Americans after taxes. Wages are really high here, so it offsets itself.

I too think that wages will increase in the US, because capitalistic hierarchies tend to work that way, if the policies are in place for it. I believe the US would adapt.

When we have increased the minimum wage in Scandinavia, almost like clockwork, higher wages across all levels adjusts accordingly. The pay ceiling always moves, and that is natural in a globalized economy that wants to run on being a nation of highly educated workers with a high level of expertise. This is how America remains competitive. It demands a sacrifice and commitment to education.



I believe there will be massive cost savings with a significantly improved welfare state. Billions could be saved, on less crime, desperation, homeless people, violence, overpopulated prisons. Those savings will help many people. The best part is that it is a bi-product of giving poor people access to health care and education. It absolves ignorance, it lowers violence. Nobody disagrees with that.

But I am concerned. I am concerned because it would require many people to take the long perspective. And if you are living from paycheck to paycheck right now, I can see that the wishy-washy promise that wages will go up at some point, is not a comforting soluble.

But what I will propose is this; In Scandinavia, often when we have introduced systems like this, we don't just hit you with it 100% on day 1. It has a roll-out effect over a number of years. Like Bernies plan with minimum wage. It's not supposed to hit 15 dollar minimum wage before 2022 or something like that.
I believe that if we saw these tax hikes, there would also be exemptions.



In Scandinavia we have many tax exemptions! Why? Well, because what is the point of taxing people something they can't afford. exemptions are made to levitate and help people.
So to help business and local entrepreneurs, it is normal to get tax exemptions on things related to your business and employees. If you are a business owner, it incentives to take your profits and stretch them out to grow your business, improve it, hire more staff, than to put it in your pocket and be taxed higher.
It allows small business owners to get tax deductibles on company expenses and services. Have your own freelance business or hair saloon? Tax exemptions for you.

There are tax exemptions for students. for public transportation, for student jobs that allows them to get a better tax break while they are occupied with school.
Seniors have their own tax breaks.


I guess what I am trying to say is this; It's not as scary as it looks. Society will always adjust. Think about how much money gets pulled into the public sector from this. Than in itself revitalizes a dying sector with many jobs and a higher standard of infrastructure.


I share Mael's concerns about if many Americans want to believe in the bounty that can be had. Because this will take time to show its full effects. It will take an entire generation for the American landscape to be fully changed, because the people who have fallen through the system, have children who are bound to- statistically, have really poor odds at a decent life, need to grow up and against all odds change their lives. It will only happen with education and health care.
I think America needs it, and the people deserves it. I think Europe needs it, because we're going right over what is happening, and we need America to show some progression due to our crisis. We need to be reminded that we need to invest in a better oiling of the machine, instead of trying to produce more and more on a old outdated machine that produces worse and worse results.
It's a commitment. It's a statement and it's taking a chance. Because nobody knows how it will play out in the US. The US is not like Scandinavia nor any other country. There are millions of ways this could go. And along with the great infrastructure rebuilding project there is potential for a different America.
It's very hard to think it is possible. In 4 years? In 8? Will people still tell others to pipe down, and ask for gradual change. Or is jumping into this with two feet the way!? Americans will know what is best for their country, but in the inequality is reaching scary levels.

I think I'm not really needed here, there's someone with my points and views already there who is more eloquent than I am.

If a company can afford $50k + $5k for healthcare, and the healthcare part is wiped out, they could try getting away with carrying on paying $50k... but eventually one or two others will have the bright idea of offering the $55k to attract good workers, because hey there's a spare $5k lying around and they need to fill a spot quick, and then others will have to up it again to compete. Ultimately people are paid what the market values them at, and if they become $5k a year less expensive to hire that makes them worth $5k more, all else being equal.

(well, unless they're all in a cartel like with Apple/Google a couple years ago)

They don't really need to be in a cartel really.
Most companies don't really try to hire the best and brightest anyway (or wages would have increased way past the point they are at this point).
Most people aren't even aware of the amount their company is paying for their coverage so most employers can pocket the savings without anyone noticing really.

 

[Euphoria14]

It's a good thing most Americans told Unions to go fucking jump off a cliff and die. Imagine the terrible state we would be in if people actually belonged to an organization that represented their interests and when a UHC plan possibly came into effect said organization could lobby and push companies to pass on whatever savings resulted onto their employees rather than just pocketing it for themselves. Truly frightening, glad that won't ever happen.



You would be getting close to 1k back in rebates from the Carbon Tax from the start in 2017 and close to 2k by 2030. So yeah while you'd still take a hit, it wouldn't be close to 5k for 50 years. More like 3K, so you'd still be coming out on top with 2-3k in savings each year going by your own admission, plus the savings in college tuition.

We pay more than 3k/year in taxes come tax time. I would still end up with a net loss.

Going by today this hike is very bad for my family. I can't just say fuck it and drop a 30-year mortgage, nor would I want to.

 

[Steel]

100k=rich, was the argument. It seems like you are being intentionally dishonest, unless you read the thread incorrectly or did no diligence to see what he was responding to.

Median income is 52k not 30k. 2 working people in a household isn't uncommon. Thus, 100k for a household isn't uncommon.

Median income also varies greatly depending on where you live. For example, if you're a garbage collector in New York City, you're making 144k a year.

On the other hand housing in New York is absurdly expensive at this point compared to more rural areas(or even other cities), so that doesn't add up to as much buying power as it sounds.

 

[Lexxism]

Even gaf becomes conservative when it comes to THEIR taxes.

lol. I'm thinking the same thing after reading the thread.

 

[AlphaDump]

Yes? That's what I was trying to point out. You and me are on the same page bud

100k= rich vs. 100k= doesn't equal poverty, arent the same. But i shouldnt nitpick. I've always wanted to be friends with a Penguin.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Not poverty, but people in multiple threads on this board do act like a 100k household income in major cities are living right on the edge of total financial collapse and totally ignore the millions of people who survive perfectly fine on far lower wages than them despite even worse socioeconomic conditions.

To put it bluntly, if you make more than 75% of a city and any kind of tax increase will ruin you (I'm not even including Bernie's tax plan in here - I've seen the same kind of comments when any kind of tax increase comes up), then that's on you.



100k is upper middle class, even in San Francisco. The median household income is 63k. Simple math does the rest for you there.

You sound like someone who doesn't exactly understand nor have experience in the economics of living in a place like the Bay Area let alone understand that there's a huge gap in what someone pays in rent/mortgage now compared to what they may have locked down a decade or more ago. That alone skewers the median income and doesn't tell you what it costs to live there today. $100k is not rich in the Bay Area where houses are 7 to 10 times the price of what they cost elsewhere; where a down payment costs more than buying a house outright elsewhere.

 

[damisa]

If a company can afford $50k + $5k for healthcare, and the healthcare part is wiped out, they could try getting away with carrying on paying $50k... but eventually one or two others will have the bright idea of offering the $55k to attract good workers, because hey there's a spare $5k lying around and they need to fill a spot quick, and then others will have to up it again to compete. Ultimately people are paid what the market values them at, and if they become $5k a year less expensive to hire that makes them worth $5k more, all else being equal.

(well, unless they're all in a cartel like with Apple/Google a couple years ago)

Sure on paper it works, same as "trickle down economics" but the fact is that the people making 50k are mostly disposable and easily replaceable. Anyway, companies never give spare money to their employees, they already have record amounts of cash on hand they can use for attracting workers, why aren't they doing it now?

 

[Lumination]

Thats what i hate for these plans. If you don't fall in the bottom 20-30% of income its a loose-loose.

Well, yes. When people say they want socialized this, socialized that, someone needs to pay for it. It can't be JUST the 1%. The top 10-20% will have to carry the burden so that the less fortunate can live better lives. That's the only way it will work.

As someone that crawled into that $15k bracket through hard work, I have no problems paying a more.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

I bet Americans would faint if they knew how much the average Canadian pays in tax.

Okay, I'll bite. How many beaver pelts and jars of maple syrup do you pay per year in Canada?

 

[Euphoria14]

Yes, it really is. Step out of your bubble.

We did with a 1-year accelerated LPN course and me working my ass off for years. I have only a high school education.

So it can be done.

Plus $100,000/year on Long Island isn't as much as some might think it is.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Median income is 52k not 30k. 2 working people in a household isn't uncommon. Thus, 100k for a household isn't uncommon.

Median income also varies greatly depending on where you live. For example, if you're a garbage collector in New York City, you're making 144k a year.

On the other hand housing in New York is absurdly expensive at this point compared to more rural areas(or even other cities), so that doesn't add up to as much buying power as it sounds.

*BUZZER*

Sorry, you're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_metropolitan_statistical_areas_in_the_United_States

Median _household_ income is 59k. Having a household income of above 100k is still very rare.