A question for conservatives on restoring the middle class.

[quote name='Javery']I guess but I was referring to the money I spend above what everyone else would likely consider "normal expenses" like food, gas, car maintenance, cell phone, insurance, cable, internet, heat, electric, etc. I probably spend more on my house and more in taxes ($12,000 per year for 0.14 acres!) and the rest goes towards my kids - clothes, activities, college funds [this is a biggie], etc. Anything left over goes towards the emergency fund (I'm a bit on the ultra-conservative/paranoid side when it comes to having enough for a catastrophe like losing my job or some unforeseen medical condition, etc.). I certainly don't live like I have a ton of money (even though I might).[/QUOTE]
See, the thing is that you actually DO. College funds, mortgages, rainy days funds while being debt-free are things that are not in the pervue of someone that is a member of the working poor to average household income. The ability to choose to live well below your means to get yourself out of debt is literally living like you have a ton of money. The only difference is that someone else that makes more than you doesn't have to live below their means, but that still doesn't mean that your ability to choose is diminished in the slightest.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Keep squealing about people who make 200+k instead of directing your anger at the looting class, guys.

It's no wonder our masters run roughshod over the country; we're too consumed with demonizing families and our fellow peons instead of directing our anger at the banking/MIC elite.[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing the point of the posters on this thread. There can be no solidarity with the proletariat when the petite bourgeoisie buy into the bullshit of the haute bourgeoisie. Saying that you're proletariat while endorsing policies of the haute bourgeoisie only serves the fucking haute bourgeoisie. And believe me, a lot of the guys on the thread do not turn a blind eye away from the banking and MIC elite.
 
[quote name='dohdough']See, the thing is that you actually DO. College funds, mortgages, rainy days funds while being debt-free are things that are not in the pervue of someone that is a member of the working poor to average household income. The ability to choose to live well below your means to get yourself out of debt is literally living like you have a ton of money. The only difference is that someone else that makes more than you doesn't have to live below their means, but that still doesn't mean that your ability to choose is diminished in the slightest.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. What were we arguing about again?

I got the glory, I got the fame, the money, the jewels, the cash, the Denali. Getting drunk on the reg, fucking good times on the reg, yachts on the reg, sex on the reg... Basically all the shit that most guys fantasize about.
 
[quote name='Javery']I completely agree. What were we arguing about again?[/QUOTE]
We're arguing about you saying that you're living no better than when you were making $50k or whatever it was.

Now I'm going to start arguing about how you could buy a shitty game like Enslaved and Kung-Fu Panda.;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']We're arguing about you saying that you're living no better than when you were making $50k or whatever it was.

Now I'm going to start arguing about how you could buy a shitty game like Enslaved and Kung-Fu Panda.;)[/QUOTE]

I guess in my head I view material possessions as a measure of "being rich" and to that end my life isn't much different than when I was making
 
[quote name='willardhaven']In what I would consider a high rent building (1 bed=$1500) 2 people can live for less than $25,000 per year including food and utilities if they use public transit.

I want to know where all the $100,000+ people are spending their money, although I think DohDough covered it.[/QUOTE]

Javery has mentioned he's a parent. Plan on spending an absolute shit-ton on kids. It's not just the diapers, it's the near monthly dr. appointments if it's a new born. Inevitably, a child is going to get an ear infection here and there. Health insurance execs are the ones that I put in the same ring of hell as child molestors. Those pigs are playing games with people's health and lives. Anyhoo, throw in another $4-500/mo on health insurance for a spouse and two kids.

Then even a minor health situation can set you back thousands of dollars any given year, AFTER bullshit like 80/20 coverage health insurance. We paid out of pocket about $3k for the birth of our daughter two years ago WITH insurance.

Kids grow like weeds, you're always buying clothes for them. Pre-school is a looming expense for us, that is several hundred dollars a month starting this fall. Granted it's an option, but all research has shown that pre-school can be quite important developmentally for kids, so it's important to us.

Also, not everyone has the opportunity to use public transportation. When I lived in Oakland, worked in SF, I sure did ($7/day roundtrip), but now I don't live within 5 miles of a bus stop. Drove my car til it fell apart, got a family car that would accommodate the family, both interest free. Wife had student loans that took us about 8 years to pay off (which we finally did in a lump sum).

These bare bones budgets some of you guys are proposing is great for a 21 year old single person, but for a family is complete and total nonsense.

Are kids and family a huge burden? Dude, no question. But for me, they mean so much to me now that we've got 'em, that I would die for them. Being poor is the tradeoff I'd gladly make.

I make a hell of a lot less than 100k and we are treading water. Some months in the black, some in the red. As I said earlier, I'd love to make A LOT more than I do so I can be less stressed about finances, get to do nice things for my kids and family, both in the short term and long term. That gets painted as selfish and exploitive by some in this thread, but it's from people who aren't parents, or have such a naive world view that their thoughts on the matter mean a little less than nothing to me.
 
I feel like you guys are just rationalizing. You are not forced to have children and living without access to public transportation means cheaper rent. I will concede the health emergency argument, which is why I am for a public healthcare option.

I don't know much about raising kids aside from that I couldn't afford to do it. Although there are people who raise kids well while making minimum wage (despite Republican efforts).

I think owning a home is another huge money pit (a fine film btw). Once again that is a choice and not a necessity.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I feel like you guys are just rationalizing. You are not forced to have children and living without access to public transportation means cheaper rent.

I will concede the health emergency argument, which is why I am for a public healthcare option.[/QUOTE]

Not forced to have kids. Ya think? Are you equally as critical of people who are poor and keep having them because they can't figure out which end of a rubber their dick goes in?

In a perfect world we'd all pick the exact location where we live. I live where there is available housing, suitable for a family, in a safe neighborhood, that I can afford (in fact, I'm paying a truly ridiculously low amount in rent-probably $300 below market value). I could certainly live in a dive and get my place broken into each month, so I could take the city bus instead, but there goes my money anyway, and I'd probably only save $1-200 a month. Again, when I was single, I lived in those shitholes. It's different when you've got kids.
 
yeah, kids are definitely expensive. I think we paid just over $5K when my son was born and we were covered! We spend about $200 in groceries every week because the more they grow the more they eat. I swear my son has a hole in his stomach - he's 34 lbs. and he eats and shits like a mofo. Health insurance for the family is $900/month and doesn't even cover everything (we have a $3K operation coming up next month. ugh.). Clothes, school, activities, etc. It all adds up. It's crazy!
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I feel like you guys are just rationalizing. You are not forced to have children and living without access to public transportation means cheaper rent. I will concede the health emergency argument, which is why I am for a public healthcare option.

I don't know much about raising kids aside from that I couldn't afford to do it. Although there are people who raise kids well while making minimum wage (despite Republican efforts).

I think owning a home is another huge money pit (a fine film btw). Once again that is a choice and not a necessity.[/QUOTE]

That's all true. All this stuff is choice for the most part. Everyone could get by with less for the most part. But the point of making more money is to be able to enjoy it and do things like live in a better neighborhood in a bigger place, put more toward retirement and the kid's college funds and all that kind of stuff that people who make less can't afford.

That said, I don't like when people who make that kind of money whine about not being rich either. But I also don't wonder where the money goes, as it's easy to see how that after tax income gets eaten up by the higher cost of living, kids, college funds, retirement funds etc. etc. But again, it's lame to whine about being rich when you can afford all those kind of things many can only dream of. People should be content with that and not whine about not being "ballin' like P. Diddy."


And public transit varies greatly in quality/value by city. I live about a 10 minute walk from a subway stop--but the subway system in this city sucks. Lots of the city isn't accessible by it, trains aren't frequent enough, and for me to take it to work takes 30-45 minutes longer per day and costs more than I spend on gas and parking to drive the 3 miles to work etc. Plus it's just a pretty ghetto system without enough security so there are far too many problems with aggressive beggars, fights and arguments breaking out etc. compared to most other city subways I've used. Buses are just as bad and take for ever to get anywhere since they've cut a lot of routes due to budget problems.

So I seldom use it other than for going to the airport since it's much cheaper than a cab and saves having to bum a ride from a friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']And public transit varies greatly in quality/value by city. I live about a 10 minute walk from a subway stop--but the subway system in this city sucks. Lots of the city isn't accessible by it, trains aren't frequent enough, and for me to take it to work takes 30-45 minutes longer per day and costs more than I spend on gas and parking to drive the 3 miles to work etc. Plus it's just a pretty ghetto system without enough security so there are far too many problems with aggressive beggars, fights and arguments breaking out etc. compared to most other city subways I've sued. Buses are just as bad and take for ever to get anywhere since they've cut a lot of routes due to budget problems.

So I seldom use it other than for going to the airport since it's much cheaper than a cab and saves having to bum a ride from a friend. Even if one isn't wasting money on material goods, things like living in a bigger house and/or a nice neighborhood, health care cost for kids, college funds etc. that those of us making less can't afford eat up a lot of money very quickly.[/QUOTE]
This is a point I wanted to make as well. willardhaven and I live in an area with a decent transit system with many amenities not found in other large cities. Relatively speaking, we have a pretty high level of socio-economic diversity and it shows in the city planning(for the purposes of this thread anyways). Having been to other cities in the US, Boston is by far the exception and not the rule.
 
Yeah, Boston's train and subway system is damn good for sure.

Hell, I even miss DC's metro after moving. It was at least convenient in that it covered most of the city (Georgetown being the notable exception, but even that is still only a mile or so walk from the nearest metro).

The subway in my city was more built just to get people from the suburbs into the center of the city, rather than to get people who live in the city around as its literally just a plus sign through the city and then branches out some in the suburbs. So it's useless for getting anywhere other than the main north/south drag of the city for the most part.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Not forced to have kids. Ya think? Are you equally as critical of people who are poor and keep having them because they can't figure out which end of a rubber their dick goes in?

In a perfect world we'd all pick the exact location where we live. I live where there is available housing, suitable for a family, in a safe neighborhood, that I can afford (in fact, I'm paying a truly ridiculously low amount in rent-probably $300 below market value). I could certainly live in a dive and get my place broken into each month, so I could take the city bus instead, but there goes my money anyway, and I'd probably only save $1-200 a month. Again, when I was single, I lived in those shitholes. It's different when you've got kids.[/QUOTE]

I'm not critical of uneducated people... I"m critical of people who make the decision to have children and then complain about not having enough money. We don't live in a shit hole, it's actually very nice here.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I feel like you guys are just rationalizing. You are not forced to have children and living without access to public transportation means cheaper rent. I will concede the health emergency argument, which is why I am for a public healthcare option.

I don't know much about raising kids aside from that I couldn't afford to do it. Although there are people who raise kids well while making minimum wage (despite Republican efforts).

I think owning a home is another huge money pit (a fine film btw). Once again that is a choice and not a necessity.[/QUOTE]

They're going to bitch no matter what. The real question is: will they work less or earn less money if their taxes are raised? The answer is no. So with that solved, we can move on to whether they owe more taxes then they currently pay. Once the W tax cuts are repealed I'm willing to let it slide for a while, but the very top of the pyramid should be the next big focus in American politics. It won't be, but it should be.
 
[quote name='camoor']They're going to bitch no matter what. The real question is: will they work less or earn less money if their taxes are raised? The answer is no. [/QUOTE]

To be fair, people like Javery have no choice in the matter. He makes big bucks, but he's not very far up the chain at the law firm so he has to work the same hours regardless of tax rates as he's at his bosses mercy.

Which gets back to the earlier point discussed in the thread. It's not really the people making in the lower six-figure income range that are the problem. It's really that top half of the top one percent with the multimillion dollar incomes--much of which are stocks etc. and only getting hit with the 15% capital gains tax.

Those are the ones we really need to worry about getting taxes up as they have huge incomes and are getting way undertaxed due to the capital gains tax being so low and various other loopholes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, people like Javery have no choice in the matter. He makes big bucks, but he's not very far up the chain at the law firm so he has to work the same hours regardless of tax rates as he's at his bosses mercy.

Which gets back to the earlier point discussed in the thread. It's not really the people making in the lower six-figure income range that are the problem. It's really that top half of the top one percent with the multimillion dollar incomes--much of which are stocks etc. and only getting hit with the 15% capital gains tax.

Those are the ones we really need to worry about getting taxes up as they have huge incomes and are getting way undertaxed due to the capital gains tax being so low and various other loopholes.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was trying to say in the part of my post you didn't quote.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Which gets back to the earlier point discussed in the thread. It's not really the people making in the lower six-figure income range that are the problem. It's really that top half of the top one percent with the multimillion dollar incomes--much of which are stocks etc. and only getting hit with the 15% capital gains tax. [/QUOTE]

And the funny part is, I dont see any of the lower 100K+ people in this thread complaining about "taxes", they (we) seem to only be complaining about being called "rich". Well let me not speak for the others but that's my thing. 100K in the DC area is like 65K-70K in places like Dallas, New Orleans, Raleigh, Cleveland. I sounds like a hellava lot of money, but it doesnt go quite as far as one would think.

But *because* I live in the DC area is *why* they pay me 100K+. If I lived in Detroit, maybe they'd pay me less (actually that's a hotly debated point b/w union and management).

As far as taxes, I'm on record as being for a more progressive tax code, a elimination of the FICA income cap, and for all income being income. Substantively, there is really no argument. (other than class envy :) j/k)
 
[quote name='willardhaven']We only have broadcast cable, I'm sure if you dropped the cable boxes you could have Netflix and Chipotle.[/QUOTE]
We haven't had cable in many years. ;D Rabbit ears FTW.
 
I don't understand how you can make over $100,000 and not have enough for Netflix or an occasional restaurant dinner.

If you make $100,000 a year and spend all of it, it does not negate the fact that you are rich.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']And the funny part is, I dont see any of the lower 100K+ people in this thread complaining about "taxes", they (we) seem to only be complaining about being called "rich".
[/quote]

Well, Javery and some others in a past thread complained about Obama wanting to raise taxes on people making $250k or above. Just not in this thread really...yet anyway.

Well let me not speak for the others but that's my thing. 100K in the DC area is like 65K-70K in places like Dallas, New Orleans, Raleigh, Cleveland. I sounds like a hellava lot of money, but it doesnt go quite as far as one would think.

But *because* I live in the DC area is *why* they pay me 100K+. If I lived in Detroit, maybe they'd pay me less (actually that's a hotly debated point b/w union and management).

I think people understand that--I certainly due having lived in the DC area during grad school and living in another big city (but cheaper one) currently. Some like Magus still bitch that it's just a choice to live in those types of areas--and he's right to some extent though I think he makes to much of it.

But at the same time, making $100--much less $250K plus, puts you in a high income bracket even in cities like DC, NYC etc. So people making six figures in those places are still much better off than most residents of those metro areas. You don't need that kind of money to get by on those areas. I got by in the DC area on $25-30K a year during grad school.

Of course that means no kids, having a roommate or two etc. But that's the point, $100k or $250k may not feel "rich" to those who make it, but they can still afford things most people living in their city cannot.

They aren't at the top of the food chain and "ballin' like P. Diddy" or anything, but they're still enjoying a standard of life well above average for their area.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't understand how you can make over $100,000 and not have enough for Netflix or an occasional restaurant dinner.
[/quote]

$100K isn't that much in a major city---especially if someone is early in their career and saddled with a ton of student loan debt etc.

I don't have much problem with someone saying $100K isn't rich. I still don't like when they whine about since they're still better off that most of society.

But $100k a year isn't going to buy you much of a house in most cities (especially pricey ones like NYC or DC or San Francisco etc.), especially if there are student loans or other debts to deal with.

So I can see how money is still pretty tight. I've known several people with law degrees or medical degrees who really struggled their first few years as they didn't get the $200k plus job and had a hard time with paying back loans etc.

If you make $100,000 a year and spend all of it, it does not negate the fact that you are rich.

According to data from the census, the median household income in the US in 2009 was just under $50,000. So I wouldn't necessarily call $100k rich. I think when people think rich they're thinking more than double the average household income.

Again, it's a good chunk of money and I hate when people who are relatively well off whine as much as anyone.

But I think we're spending way too much time here beating up people making $100k or $250k or whatever when they're not the problem. They're paying taxes and are in the 33% bracket or the 35% of they're in the $373,651+ range. Those rates aren't unreasonably low, and if they go back to where they were pre-Bush cuts there even more reasonable.

The problem is that $373K is the highest cut off and there are no higher brackets. And that so many of the wealthier get most of their income from stock options and other investments and are only paying 15% capital gains tax.

It's that top half of the top 1% of income earners that are severely under-taxed and are holding a huge amount of the money and power in the world today. That's who we should be focused on. Not the people making a few hundred thousand who are mostly paying their taxes and not living the lavish lifestyles of the "rich and famous"--even if they do sometimes annoy us by whining and acting like they don't know how well off they are! :D
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't understand how you can make over $100,000 and not have enough for Netflix or an occasional restaurant dinner.

If you make $100,000 a year and spend all of it, it does not negate the fact that you are rich.[/QUOTE]
For simplicity's sake, it can pretty much be summed up as debt-free, cash-poor, soon-to-be-asset rich...or at least that's where speedracer seems to be at this point. After that, then you get into Javery's issues with being debt-free, asset-rich, cash-poor while wanting to be debt-free, asset-rich, cash-rich, but it isn't a large jump from where speedracer is to get to Javery.

Believe me, I'm on your side of things, but some people put priority on student loans/being debt-free over becoming asset-rich first. You can certainly have a nice car, nice apt, nice wardrobe with a high income, but just prolong the length of the student loan terms by not paying it off asap. Whereas speedracer paying off all student loans and buying 2 cars in cash even WITH the trade-ins is also no small task as a 15 year old car will barely cover sales tax. It's not so much not being able to afford Netflix or Chipotle, but buying cars and getting rid of $100k in loans instead...not to say that it isn't a huge luxury of course, because it is.

But hey, I just hate when privileged people don't recognize their privilege to begin with...heh
 
[quote name='hostyl1']And the funny part is, I dont see any of the lower 100K+ people in this thread complaining about "taxes", they (we) seem to only be complaining about being called "rich". Well let me not speak for the others but that's my thing. 100K in the DC area is like 65K-70K in places like Dallas, New Orleans, Raleigh, Cleveland. I sounds like a hellava lot of money, but it doesnt go quite as far as one would think.

But *because* I live in the DC area is *why* they pay me 100K+. If I lived in Detroit, maybe they'd pay me less (actually that's a hotly debated point b/w union and management).

As far as taxes, I'm on record as being for a more progressive tax code, a elimination of the FICA income cap, and for all income being income. Substantively, there is really no argument. (other than class envy :) j/k)[/QUOTE]

:bs:

It's obvious that alot of the whiners on here don't know how to budget. Who is giving these idiots 100K+ jobs (and how can I get in on the action)
 
[quote name='camoor']
(and how can I get in on the action)[/QUOTE]

Go get an advanced degree in a field that pays in that range, and be sure to network your ass off while getting the degree so you can land said six figure job after graduating. And be ready to slave away for the salary. The average person out of law school or med school etc. making a six figure salary never sees a 40 hour work week, so you have to be willing to log the long hours and maybe get a break down the road as you move up the food chain.

That's pretty much the only way to do it for the majority of people--i.e. those not born into wealthy families who have all their networking done by nepotism.

Also, in terms of household rather than individual income, choosing a career-driven partner is wise. Being very career driven I never what spouse who's a housewife or low income earner. I wouldn't get along with them, and if I'm going to settle down I want to reap the benefits of having two nice incomes. :D

It's obvious that alot of the whiners on here don't know how to budget. Who is giving these idiots 100K+ jobs...
As for budgeting, I don't think that's so much of the problem with guys like Speedracer and Javery. It seems that they don't have as much cash to spend on random things as they'd like because they are budgeting conservatively and paying down debts, maxing out retirement accounts and kids college funds etc.

So its more a problem of being responsible but still desiring to be "ballin' like P. Diddy" than it is not budgeting well. :D So I can get where they're coming from.

While it's petty to whine when they're able to save up all that money, pay down debts etc. which most can only dream of doing, at the same time it sucks to work a ton and not have the cash after savings and bills to reap the material benefits like a huge fancy house, a sports car, exoctic vacations multiple times a year that the filthy rich can afford.

In short, dohdough pretty much nailed it in his earlier post. Put more simply than he did, they're mostly living middle class lifestyles in terms of type/size of house, type of car etc.---i.e. middle class to upper middle class in material possessions. But they're very much upper class in terms of amounts of savings/investments, debt to income ratios etc. So they don't feel "rich" despite having all that money invested, debts paid down etc. because they don't have the lavish material goods as they prioritized paying down debts and building savings over splurging on a huge house or a Porshe etc. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor'] (and how can I get in on the action)[/QUOTE]

Learn how to do math and study it extensively. (I was making the equivalent of 26K+ as a sophomore intern in engineering).
 
[quote name='camoor']:bs:

It's obvious that alot of the whiners on here don't know how to budget. Who is giving these idiots 100K+ jobs (and how can I get in on the action)[/QUOTE]
Go on a diet, become a gigalo and not have any problems servicing old fat white men. This is assuming your face isn't one that only a mother can love. Funny how the same also applies if you want to get a regular job.*rimshot!* Literally:booty:
 
Oh I know you were joking. I was being facetious with my reply. :D

Too many of you act like you have to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth to get a six figure paying career. That's not really true. It's pretty much true of the top half of the top 1% as most executives come from generational wealth with the exception of the few small business uber-success stories.

But, as I said earlier, pretty much anyone that at least has the luck to have parents stress the importance of education and keep them in school and doing well (along with intellectual ability to do so of course) has a chance to get a nice, upper middle class or even low six figure career.

Point being, I don't think most people luck into jobs paying in the low six figures. People born into rich families tend to end up above that level. The majority of people making low six figures just had luck in the form of having a supportive family keeping them in school and doing well, and the ability to do well. And they've gotten where they are from there by working hard all through school, college and graduate school and into their careers.

So I think the ire a lot of people have at people making in the low six figures is bullshit personally. Other than not liking them whining about not being "rich," as it is annoying as hell when people don't recognize how much better off they are than the average Joe. But otherwise, most of them got where they are by working hard.

Graduate high school with a high gpa and good test scores and you'll have little problem getting into a good college. Graduate college with high gpa and do well on grad/law/med school entrance exams and you'll have no problem getting into a good grad/law/med school. Do well there both in GPA and networking as much as you can (go to conferences, work closely with your professors, do summer internships where applicable--i.e. law school etc.) and you should land a high paying job regardless of race, your parents social class etc.

The problem is race and social class obstacles reduce chances of staying on that path of high academic achievement, and that's what needs fixed. That's where the playing field is most un-leveled. And of course their are tons of barriers in advancing in these high paying fields and getting into that top half of the top 1%, and many of those are still based on racism, classism etc., as well as nepotism etc. But people are silly to aspire to that as that will always be luck. But if they work hard from school on up, a six figure career is a realistic goal assuming they're interested in working in a field that pays that level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']

So I think the ire a lot of people have at people making in the low six figures is bullshit personally. Other than not liking them whining about not being "rich," as it is annoying as hell when people don't recognize how much better off they are than the average Joe. But otherwise, most of them got where they are by working car.

[/QUOTE]

That's all I'm complaining about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, my comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

Just a general view some have in their ire of people making a few hundred K by thinking they're all fat cats sitting on a ton of cash who need their taxes raised dramatically, and talking about having landscapers and nannies etc. (which even if they do hire them, it is good as it provides jobs for lower classes) etc.

Many are annoying with their whining (not just on here but in real life) but most of them worked hard to get where they are and are otherwise not deserving of all this ire.

The people that deserve the ire are the top half of the top one percent who control a huge chunk of the wealth and power in the country, pay lower effective tax rates than the lower and middle classes, take higher pay at the expense of their companies, and many of whom got their jobs through luck and nepotism just as much (if not more) than hard work in many cases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Too many of you act like you have to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth to get a six figure paying career. [/QUOTE]

Ironically, I *was* born with a literal silver spoon. It was given to me (actually my dad) by his co-workers @ IBM. I've only been told of it though, I've not seen it since I was old enough to remember stuff.

Anyway, to the actual question at hand in the OP on how to restore the middle class, my feelings could best be summed up in two words:

REPEAL NAFTA.

or if those two words are too many to read, here's just one:

PROTECTIONISM.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Too many of you act like you have to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth to get a six figure paying career. That's not really true. It's pretty much true of the top half of the top 1% as most executives come from generational wealth with the exception of the few small business uber-success stories.[/QUOTE]
Of course not, but but being raised in an environment with white-collar parents that also made 6 figures helps immensely with that. In matter of fact, I think the silver spoon analogy works perfectly because it isn't the rarest or even most valuable metal, but looks just as nice compared to a gold, white gold, or even platinum spoon.;)

But, as I said earlier, pretty much anyone that at least has the luck to have parents stress the importance of education and keep them in school and doing well (along with intellectual ability to do so of course) has a chance to get a nice, upper middle class or even low six figure career.
Starting class aside, a low six figure salary isn't that easy to get even with a specialized college degree like MIS, CompSci, or BioEng and even then, that comes after years of toiling away at entry level positions that pay maybe $50k at most. Most entry level jobs for college grads are usually between $30 and 40k.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Of course not, but but being raised in an environment with white-collar parents that also made 6 figures helps immensely with that. In matter of fact, I think the silver spoon analogy works perfectly because it isn't the rarest or even most valuable metal, but looks just as nice compared to a gold, white gold, or even platinum spoon.;)
[/quote]

Of course that helps. But the key is just having parents who supportive and stay on their kids about doing well in school so they can get into a good college.

Starting class aside, a low six figure salary isn't that easy to get even with a specialized college degree like MIS, CompSci, or BioEng and even then, that comes after years of toiling away at entry level positions that pay maybe $50k at most. Most entry level jobs for college grads are usually between $30 and 40k.

That's why in my example I talked about getting into a good college and doing welll and then getting into good grad/law/med school and doing well their to (and networking like hell while there). :D

A bachelor's degree is almost to the point of being a high school diploma aside from technical fields like engineering.

If someone wants a low six figure or above career and wasn't born into it, they're going to have to do grad school these days. The days of entering the workforce at 22 out of college, and retiring at 55 or 60 are becoming a thing of the past. I was 30 (almost 31) when I finished up grad school and started my career. So I don't see an issue with it. Especially for things that don't take as long and pay more like a law degree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']For simplicity's sake, it can pretty much be summed up as debt-free, cash-poor, soon-to-be-asset rich...or at least that's where speedracer seems to be at this point. After that, then you get into Javery's issues with being debt-free, asset-rich, cash-poor while wanting to be debt-free, asset-rich, cash-rich, but it isn't a large jump from where speedracer is to get to Javery.[/quote]
I would agree with that. The only thing that separates us is time.
Believe me, I'm on your side of things, but some people put priority on student loans/being debt-free over becoming asset-rich first. You can certainly have a nice car, nice apt, nice wardrobe with a high income, but just prolong the length of the student loan terms by not paying it off asap. Whereas speedracer paying off all student loans and buying 2 cars in cash even WITH the trade-ins is also no small task as a 15 year old car will barely cover sales tax. It's not so much not being able to afford Netflix or Chipotle, but buying cars and getting rid of $100k in loans instead...not to say that it isn't a huge luxury of course, because it is.
When we first hit the income jackpot, we moved to a super trendy part of town. We started looking at an Audi. I sat down to do the math and had a holy shit moment. We realized that every decision we were making was going to force us to maintain this new status quo. We had a heart to heart to figure out what our priorities really are. Family. Soccer games. A life without overtime. We realized that debt was our bondage and adding to it would only make us less happy. We bit the bullet and ate the apartment contract cancel fee because we found another place where we could cover the loss via the difference in 4 months.

What we want is fuck you money. Without debt, fuck you money is surprising little. With no mortgage, no car payments, and no credit debt, how much money do you really need? A family of four with none of that debt needs how much to be fabulously wealthy in honest, human being terms? $60k a year? Hell, even $80k only needs two $40k earners and I make more than that as a city government worker.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
When we first hit the income jackpot, we moved to a super trendy part of town. We started looking at an Audi. I sat down to do the math and had a holy shit moment. We realized that every decision we were making was going to force us to maintain this new status quo. We had a heart to heart to figure out what our priorities really are. Family. Soccer games. A life without overtime. We realized that debt was our bondage and adding to it would only make us less happy. [/QUOTE]

And that's the way to do it IMO. Otherwise it's like that line from Fight Club "The things you own end up owning you."

I think that's why so many people who make a few hundred K are still so grumpy. They spend a shit ton of their time working long hours in a job they dislike so they can afford a bunch of crap they don't really need. And thus they have a low cashflow relative to their income, and don't have enough free time to enjoy friends, families, hobbies etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is that $373K is the highest cut off and there are no higher brackets. And that so many of the wealthier get most of their income from stock options and other investments and are only paying 15% capital gains tax.

It's that top half of the top 1% of income earners that are severely under-taxed and are holding a huge amount of the money and power in the world today. That's who we should be focused on. Not the people making a few hundred thousand who are mostly paying their taxes and not living the lavish lifestyles of the "rich and famous"--even if they do sometimes annoy us by whining and acting like they don't know how well off they are! :D[/QUOTE]

This plus at least 4.

Maybe a new tax bracket at $18 million? That's not trying to squash the entrepenuer, that's basically "hey fuck-o, you've benefited from the system now pay your dues."
 
[quote name='nasum']This plus at least 4.

Maybe a new tax bracket at $18 million? That's not trying to squash the entrepenuer, that's basically "hey fuck-o, you've benefited from the system now pay your dues."[/QUOTE]
Punish the "producer's" success with higher taxes? Surely you jest!! Unless you're a filthy red commie...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Punish the "producer's" success with higher taxes? Surely you jest!! Unless you're a filthy red commie...[/QUOTE]

The correct term is "job creator".

You cant punish the "job creators" with "job-killing taxes".
 
Which is BS as if the higher taxes discourage executives from taking such high salaries and bonuses, then that's money that can be re-invested in growing the company and creating new jobs, giving existing employees raises etc.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']The correct term is "job creator".

You cant punish the "job creators" with "job-killing taxes".[/QUOTE]

OK I'll bite, if taxes for the superrich are raised, how many people are going to lose their jobs at companies like AIG or Morgan Stanley? Ballpark figures, percentages, anything vaguely quantifiable is fine.
 
[quote name='camoor']OK I'll bite, if taxes for the superrich are raised, how many people are going to lose their jobs at companies like AIG or Morgan Stanley? Ballpark figures, percentages, anything vaguely quantifiable is fine.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, cant (wont) answer this question. You obviously didnt pick up the sarcasm of my previous post.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Sorry, cant (wont) answer this question. You obviously didnt pick up the sarcasm of my previous post.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. Sad to say I know people who believe that stuff.
 
I was going to say 7 people in total. Easily quantifiable. Of course of those 7, 4 are on the way out because they threw up in the cafeteria on Enchilada day and it really pissed off the rest of the crew.

On the other hand, it is exactly correct in theory. When costs (taxes can be attributed to cost) go up, maintaining the same margin is achieved by A.) reducing other costs (labor in the fear mongering version) or B.) rasining revenue (this means higher consumer prices).
It certainly passes the sniff test. Though given inflation and costs since its inception, to completely follow that logic would mean that a Royale With Cheese ought to cost about $7 and maybe $3-4 more for the combo.

It's just that the application of that theory never works in practicality. Not being able to see that is the best prrof one can offer that your average (R) just uses opinion and questionable theory and refuses to listen to anything that exists in reality. An entire decade has shown us that the Bush tax plan does not work. A DECADE FOR fuck'S SAKE! How much longer must this charade go on until the populace comes to their senses to see that the Clinton years were prosperous for a vastly larger amount of the population than the Bush years (now bleeding into the Obama years who is even more of a failure than Bush at this point). It's just absurd. How can so many people be so shortsighted and so hoodwinked into this OBVIOUS fallacy? Oh yeah, cause the right wants you to keep your guns and quit killing fetusi.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's an article from today related to the wealth gap issues by race.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...says/2011/07/25/gIQAjeftZI_story.html?hpid=z3

The wealth gap between whites and minorities has hit the widest it's ever been based on median household net worth as whites didn't get hit as hard by the recession.

Some tidbits from the article:

Between 2005 and 2009, the median net worth of Hispanic households dropped by 66 percent and that of black households fell by 53 percent, according to the report. In contrast, the median net worth of white households dropped by only 16 percent.

The median net worth of a white family now stands at 20 times that of a black family and 18 times that of a Hispanic family — roughly twice the gap that existed before the recession and the biggest gap since data began being collected in 1984.

Apparently the biggest reason for it is the housing market collapse as minority families have more of their net wealth accounted for by their home than whites

Before the recession, housing equity accounted for about two-thirds of the net worth of Hispanics and about 59 percent of that of black families. By contrast, 44 percent of white families’ wealth consisted of housing equity.

“White households have been more diversified — they are more likely to own stocks and bonds,” Kochhar said.

As a result, when the housing market collapsed, the effect fell heavier on black and Hispanic households, according to the report. Between 2005 and 2009, the median net worth of black families fell to $5,677 from $12,124, and that of Hispanic families fell to $6,325 from $18,359. In the same period, the median net worth of white households dropped to $113,149 from $134,992.
 
bread's done
Back
Top