# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  My relatives make 20k a year, and live better lifestyles than me making 100k

## Aden

This country sucks.  I get so frustrated at times that I find myself wishing for a collapse in hopes that the welfare freebies go away.  I just did my taxes, and had conversations--in one case, a heated argument--with family who did taxes too.  Here is modern Amerika for you.

My wife and I are pulling in 85k - 100k a year.  Because we "make so much," we do not qualify for government handouts.  Between federal, state and local taxes, 30%+ of our income goes to government right off the bat.  Then over 20% goes to student loans.  We live in a nice two-bedroom apartment and can afford to eat healthy food (Whole Foods, organics, etc).  But we are not rich--we have not been on vacation in almost four years; my wife has wanted/needed a new Macbook for a year but we can't afford one; we buy most of our clothes from the thrift store; we have only been out to eat two times since September; we never pay money for entertainment such as concerts, football games, movie theaters, etc.  

Two different sets of relatives of mine make around 20k a year.  In both families the wife does not work, only the husband.  One of them makes like $10 an hour at a big-box store, the other probably makes $12ish at a hospital.  One family is expecting a third child, the other the second.  This means that both families get enough tax credits so that they get way more money than they pay in--one is getting almost $10k "back" this April.  Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills, these guys get Medicaid; and for all I know are on food stamps and who knows what else.  Both families seem to eat out as much as they want, pay for entertainment, and in the last 6 months have gone on vacation.  

In short, because our government is playing Robbin Hood, we have relatives and families in my church who make a fraction of what we make, but live better lifestyles than we do.

----------


## buenijo

Either keep up the charity work, or go Galt... it's up to you.

----------


## tod evans

This is rampant!

----------


## Noclone

Moral of the story: Let your wife stay home with the kids... They will all thank you for it later in life.

----------


## Noclone

Oh, and to me, you need to manage your finances better. I guaranty if my income was simply 60k, I would be mopping up the Jones's. Sometimes it takes learning to live with so little to appreciate more. May I suggest trying to live off only one income and saving 100% of the other for just one year? Want to talk about pressurizing coal into a diamond. An idea that would be trumped for multiple excuses I'm sure, so let me know how that works out for you

----------


## ctiger2

> Then over 20% goes to student loans.


You made a hefty investment for _potential_ future income increases you're paying for now.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Oh, and to me, you need to manage your finances better. I guaranty if my income was simply 60k, I would be mopping up the Jones's. Sometimes it takes learning to live with so little to appreciate more. May I suggest trying to live off only one income and saving 100% of the other for just one year? Want to talk about pressurizing coal into a diamond. An idea that would be trumped for multiple excuses I'm sure, so let me know how that works out for you


Yeah, I used to think the same thing.  It's amazing how your expenses adjust to fit your income.

10 years ago, I only made 1/4 of what I do now, but I had just about the same possessions.  Of course, now I have a family that I'm supporting.  Trust me, if you go from making $25K to $100K, you won't even notice it.  You'll be just as strapped as ever.

----------


## Aden

> Oh, and to me, you need to manage your finances better. I guaranty if my income was simply 60k, I would be mopping up the Jones's. Sometimes it takes learning to live with so little to appreciate more. May I suggest trying to live off only one income and saving 100% of the other for just one year? Want to talk about pressurizing coal into a diamond. An idea that would be trumped for multiple excuses I'm sure, so let me know how that works out for you


No offense, but even without knowing you, I can already state that I live with less than you.  I do not own a TV or pay for cable, you probably have both; I do not have Internet service in my house, you probably do; I have eaten out twice since September (this includes fast food, or something as simple as a burrito from a gas station), you surely have eaten out more than that this month alone; we do not use or pay for cell phones, you do; we have not gone to a movie theater, concert or sporting event in over five years, you have; we have not been on vacation (one that we did not even pay for, I might add) since 2008, you have; our $10 bed is from Craigslist and EVERY other piece of furniture was free from friends, family or Freecycle, you surely have some new furniture; this is the first winter we have paid to heat our house above 55 degrees, I know that your house has been warmer.  

We want her to be a stay at home mom, but we made the mistake of taking out student loans for college.  To pay well over $2k a month in student loans requires us to find good paying jobs; having good paying jobs means that over 30% of our income goes to taxes.  

If you believe you live more simply than me, and it saves you money, tell me where so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.

----------


## Inkblots

> I do not own a TV or pay for cable


You say that like it's a bad thing!




> I do not have Internet service in my house


That, on the other hand, would be troublesome.

----------


## brushfire

poor people haters  

/taunt

----------


## Noclone

> No offense, but even without knowing you, I can already state that I live with less than you.  I do not own a TV or pay for cable, you probably have both; I do not have Internet service in my house, you probably do; I have eaten out twice since September (this includes fast food, or something as simple as a burrito from a gas station), you surely have eaten out more than that this month alone; we do not use or pay for cell phones, you do; we have not gone to a movie theater, concert or sporting event in over five years, you have; we have not been on vacation (one that we did not even pay for, I might add) since 2008, you have; our $10 bed is from Craigslist and EVERY other piece of furniture was free from friends, family or Freecycle, you surely have some new furniture; this is the first winter we have paid to heat our house above 55 degrees, I know that your house has been warmer.  
> 
> We want her to be a stay at home mom, but we made the mistake of taking out student loans for college.  To pay well over $2k a month in student loans requires us to find good paying jobs; having good paying jobs means that over 30% of our income goes to taxes.  
> 
> If you believe you live more simply than me, and it saves you money, tell me where so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.


You are wrong, and too assuming. Now, even if I did have all those things and had 100k income, I would not be in a hole. I did have most those things at one point in my life making 30k supporting a family. I still had a couple hundred dollars left over each month for savings. Tell me, How are you not saving at least 50k a year? You are getting ripped off somewhere, or simply not being truthful. Where DOES all that money go? Things just don't add up with this one.

----------


## Aden

> You are wrong, and too assuming. Now, even if I did have all those things and had 100k income, I would not be in a hole. I did have most those things at one point in my life making 30k supporting a family. I still had a couple hundred dollars left over each month for savings. Tell me, How are you not saving at least 50k a year? You are getting ripped off somewhere, or simply not being truthful. Where DOES all that money go? Things just don't add up with this one.


Dude, read my first post.  I just did my taxes this week and 28% of our income went to taxes last year.  If we only want to be slaves to student loans for 10 years, instead of 15, 20 or 25, then WELL OVER 20% of our income goes to student loans.  So, assuming that we were lucky enough to make 100k for 2012, after taxes and student loans we loose over 50k right off the bat.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> You are wrong, and too assuming. Now, even if I did have all those things and had 100k income, I would not be in a hole. I did have most those things at one point in my life making 30k supporting a family. I still had a couple hundred dollars left over each month for savings. *Tell me, How are you not saving at least 50k a year?* You are getting ripped off somewhere, or simply not being truthful. Where DOES all that money go? Things just don't add up with this one.


Based on the numbers provided, taxes and student loads are $40-50k.  This leaves $35k to $50k to live off (the initial income base is $85 to $100k).  I'll assume housing takes $24k, and that leaves $11k to $26k.  They mention healthcare costs ("Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills...").  $10k?  $1k to $16k left without getting any food on the table.

The point is that they are not sponges but are supporting with taxes those who are.

----------


## Aden

I put 85-100 because one of us is on commission.  Housing is only 12k because we rent an apartment within walking and biking distance to work.  I don't feel comfortable talking about this, but we also give at least 10% to church, charity, etc.   




> The point is that they are not sponges but are supporting with taxes those who are.


Exactly.  I hate to come on here and complain, I just had to vent to somewhere.  Unfortunately, I've had feelings of bitterness creep up on me lately.  This is because I sit around and hear people nonchalantly mention that medicaid is paying for them to have a kid, or that they are "getting back" a tax refund that is 5 - 10 times more than they paid in.  I see them sponging off the system while simultaneously sporting new ipones, ipads, LCD TVs, and a bunch of other crap that we could not afford, even if we wanted them.  So the bitterness creeps up because government steals from me to give to them, which enables them to live better lifestyles than me.

I know it's my own fault, for taking out student loans before I realized what a sham they are.  I just needed to vent.

----------


## youngbuck

How much did you borrow in student loans?  For what degree?  

If you don't want to answer the second question, I understand.

----------


## onlyrp

> This country sucks.  I get so frustrated at times that I find myself wishing for a collapse in hopes that the welfare freebies go away.  I just did my taxes, and had conversations--in one case, a heated argument--with family who did taxes too.  Here is modern Amerika for you.
> 
> My wife and I are pulling in 85k - 100k a year.  Because we "make so much," we do not qualify for government handouts.  Between federal, state and local taxes, 30%+ of our income goes to government right off the bat.  Then over 20% goes to student loans.  We live in a nice two-bedroom apartment and can afford to eat healthy food (Whole Foods, organics, etc).  But we are not rich--we have not been on vacation in almost four years; my wife has wanted/needed a new Macbook for a year but we can't afford one; we buy most of our clothes from the thrift store; we have only been out to eat two times since September; we never pay money for entertainment such as concerts, football games, movie theaters, etc.  
> 
> Two different sets of relatives of mine make around 20k a year.  In both families the wife does not work, only the husband.  One of them makes like $10 an hour at a big-box store, the other probably makes $12ish at a hospital.  One family is expecting a third child, the other the second.  This means that both families get enough tax credits so that they get way more money than they pay in--one is getting almost $10k "back" this April.  Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills, these guys get Medicaid; and for all I know are on food stamps and who knows what else.  Both families seem to eat out as much as they want, pay for entertainment, and in the last 6 months have gone on vacation.  
> 
> In short, because our government is playing Robbin Hood, we have relatives and families in my church who make a fraction of what we make, but live better lifestyles than we do.


Sorry, but living in a nice 2 bedroom apartment and eating whole foods are luxuries we don't get making $20,000.
Let's talk about these "better off" families. How much money do they SAVE each year? What kind of house do they live in?
What kind of food do they eat? Did they have the luxury of going to school and taking out a student loan that you did?
Do they have debts?

Be specific now, how much did you make last year, and the year before?
How much is taxed away? How much is paid to student loans?
What are your other expenses? Why can't you spend $1000 on a new computer? I find that VERY hard to believe, is your apartment costing you $2500 a month?

----------


## well_met_sir

10% of net or gross?  If you are paying 10% of 100k that's 10k.  You should be calculating the 10% from what you have left over after taxes and student loans, so 5k would make a lot more sense.  Or better yet, that 10% should be adjusted by what you pay in taxes, so actually the church should be paying you   I think that the problem is that churches came up with these 10% rules before the income tax became a huge problem.

----------


## onlyrp

> How much did you borrow in student loans?  For what degree?  
> 
> If you don't want to answer the second question, I understand.


He definitely should answer that question, because it's a choice he made nonetheless.

----------


## Aden

Hey Onlyrp, maybe read more than the first post.  I can understand not doing so if the thread is dozens of pages long, but this one has like one dozen posts.

----------


## onlyrp

> I put 85-100 because one of us is on commission.  Housing is only 12k because we rent an apartment within walking and biking distance to work.  I don't feel comfortable talking about this, *but we also give at least 10% to church, charity, etc.  *


Don't you think if you chose not to give to charity you'd be able to afford a laptop for yourself?
So you make choices, there is no reason you are getting less than the families making $20,000 a year. Even with all the benefits. I've heard these stories before, nothing is stopping you from taking a pay cut if you are so confident you can qualify for handouts and save money, be better off.

----------


## Aden

See, I should not have even brought up the charity thing.  1.) As a born-again Christian I believe that I am under no commandment to tithe 10%.  Instead, I am to cheerfully give whatever I like from my heart.  2.) I am not going to stop giving to church and charity so that I can buy a laptop.

----------


## Seraphim

> Don't you think if you chose not to give to charity you'd be able to afford a laptop for yourself?
> So you make choices, there is no reason you are getting less than the families making $20,000 a year. Even with all the benefits. *I've heard these stories before, nothing is stopping you from taking a pay cut if you are so confident you can qualify for handouts and save money, be better off*.


Resident troll strikes again. Lol.

----------


## onlyrp

> No offense, but even without knowing you, I can already state that I live with less than you.  I do not own a TV or pay for cable, you probably have both; I do not have Internet service in my house, you probably do; I have eaten out twice since September (this includes fast food, or something as simple as a burrito from a gas station), you surely have eaten out more than that this month alone;


If I do eat out, I bet it's cheaper than Whole Foods, organics. I also don't have cable, I have internet and cell phone, but I am well aware it's a choice I make and don't complain about it. Don't feel bad speaking out for what it is, I'm not. 




> we do not use or pay for cell phones, you do; we have not gone to a movie theater, concert or sporting event in over five years, you have; we have not been on vacation (one that we did not even pay for, I might add) since 2008,


I do none of the above, except cellphone. 




> you have; our $10 bed is from Craigslist and EVERY other piece of furniture was free from friends, family or Freecycle, you surely have some new furniture; this is the first winter we have paid to heat our house above 55 degrees, I know that your house has been warmer.


Sounds a lot like me. So I am not seeing how you can't save up 50% of your gross income, that is, $50,000 a year. 
So either I'm about to see you spend money on other things, or you are complaining that you can't save all of your $100K a year, as if the families making $20,000 a year can save even $5,000 a year. 




> We want her to be a stay at home mom, but we made the mistake of taking out student loans for college.  To pay well over $2k a month in student loans requires us to find good paying jobs; having good paying jobs means that over 30% of our income goes to taxes.


How much loan total do you have? Why can't you pay off $30,000 a year? You MAKE $80K a year and don't seem to be spending much else. 




> If you believe you live more simply than me, and it saves you money, tell me where so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.


I don't have student loans, I don't eat organic. But you don't have cellphone, so that evens out for eating costs. I don't have kids, I made the decision since high school that kids are a money toilet. I also buy clothes at discount or used. I live on less than $1500 a month. My salary isnt stable, but I always manage to save money. I am still not seeing how you can be worse off than somebody making $20,000.

----------


## dmo069

> We also give at least 10% to church, charity, etc.


There is your problem!!! Use that money to pay off your Debt!!!

----------


## onlyrp

> See, I should not have even brought up the charity thing.  1.) As a born-again Christian I believe that I am under no commandment to tithe 10%.  Instead, I am to cheerfully give whatever I like from my heart.  2.) I am not going to stop giving to church and charity so that I can buy a laptop.


You are complaining you can't have something somebody else has, that's not cheerful at all. Make up your mind.

----------


## onlyrp

> Dude, read my first post.  I just did my taxes this week and 28% of our income went to taxes last year.  If we only want to be slaves to student loans for 10 years, instead of 15, 20 or 25, then WELL OVER 20% of our income goes to student loans.  So, assuming that we were lucky enough to make 100k for 2012, after taxes and student loans we loose over 50k right off the bat.


That is a good choice to make, get out of debt, then you can start saving some money, I'll dig for a post where you talk about whether you put away money for savings each year, sounds like you can easily save $50K a year, but you probably dont due to charity and other priorities.

----------


## onlyrp

> Based on the numbers provided, taxes and student loads are $40-50k.  This leaves $35k to $50k to live off (the initial income base is $85 to $100k).  I'll assume housing takes $24k, and that leaves $11k to $26k.  They mention healthcare costs ("Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills...").  $10k?  $1k to $16k left without getting any food on the table.
> 
> The point is that they are not sponges but are supporting with taxes those who are.


do you think the family who makes $20,000 a year gets to live in a $24k house and still have money after they eat (I'll generously assume they eat free from food stamps even)?

----------


## onlyrp

> Unfortunately, I've had feelings of bitterness creep up on me lately. 
> 
> I know it's my own fault, for taking out student loans before I realized what a sham they are.  I just needed to vent.


Doesn't sound like cheerful giving to charity. Did you deduct for charity donations? I hope you did.

----------


## Seraphim

"easily" 50k a year? You flunked math didn't you?

They lose nearly that in taxes and rent alone.




> That is a good choice to make, get out of debt, then you can start saving some money, I'll dig for a post where you talk about whether you put away money for savings each year, sounds like you can easily save $50K a year, but you probably dont due to charity and other priorities.

----------


## AceNZ

> I put 85-100 because one of us is on commission.  Housing is only 12k because we rent an apartment within walking and biking distance to work.  *I don't feel comfortable talking about this, but we also give at least 10% to church, charity, etc.* 
> 
> Exactly.  I hate to come on here and complain, I just had to vent to somewhere.  Unfortunately, I've had feelings of bitterness creep up on me lately.  This is because I sit around and hear people nonchalantly mention that medicaid is paying for them to have a kid, or that they are "getting back" a tax refund that is 5 - 10 times more than they paid in.  I see them sponging off the system while simultaneously sporting new ipones, ipads, LCD TVs, and a bunch of other crap that we could not afford, even if we wanted them.  *So the bitterness creeps up because government steals from me to give to them, which enables them to live better lifestyles than me.*
> 
> I know it's my own fault, for taking out student loans before I realized what a sham they are.  I just needed to vent.


Perhaps the reason you're not comfortable talking about your donations is because there's a bit of a contradiction here.

If you feel a moral obligation to give to others, consider the fact that *government is forcibly doing it for you* -- so you're donating twice. Personally, I like to make donations to charity, but only when it doesn't harm me or my family--which includes having a noticeable effect on our lifestyle. 

Since it bothers you to see others sponging off of the system and living better than you, then why not "donate" to yourself instead?

----------


## Seraphim

This.




> Perhaps the reason you're not comfortable talking about your donations is because there's a bit of a contradiction here.
> 
> If you feel a moral obligation to give to others, consider the fact that *government is forcibly doing it for you* -- so you're donating twice. Personally, I like to make donations to charity, but only when it doesn't harm me or my family--which includes having a noticeable effect on our lifestyle. 
> 
> Since it bothers you to see others sponging off of the system and living better than you, then why not "donate" to yourself instead?

----------


## onlyrp

> "easily" 50k a year? You flunked math didn't you?
> 
> They lose nearly that in taxes and rent alone.


Taxes is 28% and rent is 12k. 
If 40K is nearly 50k, then yeah.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

We've been subsidizing the dumbest in society to procreate in greater proportions than the more innovative, productive, and better ethical folk for a while now. It's like a cascading effect. Generation after Generation we become dumber (as evidenced by any standard that bears educational performance) and more Statist. These folks generally attach themselves like leeches through the State on the backs of the productive. We are the Renaissance. This mass thievery by the Corporate and less-productive interests needs to end. It will destroy Civilization as evidenced in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and soon to the US.

----------


## onlyrp

> Perhaps the reason you're not comfortable talking about your donations is because there's a bit of a contradiction here.


I agree, contradiction, he wants to complain others have it better than him, knowing he has something they don't : CHOICES. He can donate to charity for deductions, or he can take a pay cut, poor people can't make these choices. He claims he "cheerfully" donates, but he's obviously unhappy about what he can't have.

----------


## Seraphim

He said their income is 85-100k. NOT 100K flat.




> Taxes is 28% and rent is 12k. 
> If 40K is nearly 50k, then yeah.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

Sounds like you don't have any deductions.  Are you taking the 10% you're giving the church as a tax deduction?  Plus, renting at your income level is KILLING your bottom line, especially living in Central Kentucky.  I'm sure your rent is no more than $800-900/month.  That's probably more than you'd be paying into a mortgage, and you'd be able to deduct about 70% of that.  Of course, that doesn't mean you ought to go out and buy a house immediately.

Still, the math just doesn't add up, unless you're dropping $400 a week at Whole Foods.

That being said, completely agree with the premise of your rant in the original post.

----------


## onlyrp

> He said their income is 85-100k. NOT 100K flat.


I was working with 100k.
Ok, so let's say 80k worst case as gross income. 
12k rent
24k taxes
That's 36 taken out, 44 left. I take that back. This doesn't help you at all, now you have to tell me 36 is "nearly" 50. Suit yourself.

----------


## mosquitobite

I applaude the OP for sticking with tithing.  God will bless you and don't listen to these guys!

If you haven't done Dave Ramsey's program I highly suggest it.

My husband and I made over $130k together before I quit to stay home with my kids.  We now get by on less than half.  It's because we live debt free.  Think about how this country is slaves to the fed.  Same thing with everyday debt.  Avoid it at ALLLLL costs!

----------


## onlyrp

> Sounds like you don't have any deductions.  Are you taking the 10% you're giving the church as a tax deduction?  Plus, renting at your income level is KILLING your bottom line, especially living in Central Kentucky.  I'm sure your rent is no more than $800-900/month.  That's probably more than you'd be paying into a mortgage, and you'd be able to deduct about 70% of that.  Of course, that doesn't mean you ought to go out and buy a house immediately.
> 
> *Still, the math just doesn't add up, unless you're dropping $400 a week at Whole Foods.*
> 
> That being said, completely agree with the premise of your rant in the original post.


Yeah, I'd love to know. Again, if he admires the lifestyle that people making $20,000 have, he is free to make a pay cut, I'm sure he'll enjoy reaping the benefits he sees people have.

----------


## Maximus

> Sounds like you don't have any deductions.  Are you taking the 10% you're giving the church as a tax deduction?  Plus, renting at your income level is KILLING your bottom line, especially living in Central Kentucky.  I'm sure your rent is no more than $800-900/month.  That's probably more than you'd be paying into a mortgage, and you'd be able to deduct about 70% of that.  Of course, that doesn't mean you ought to go out and buy a house immediately.
> 
> Still, the math just doesn't add up, unless you're dropping $400 a week at Whole Foods.
> 
> That being said, completely agree with the premise of your rant in the original post.


I'm kind of curious about his deductions too, you can deduct medical bills, Church donations, etc.  If more than 10% is going to Church/charities... he should be well over the standard deduction.

----------


## Danke

> ...


Have you looked into the Obama Student loan forgiveness program?

http://www.obamastudentloanforgiveness.com/

----------


## onlyrp

> Have you looked into the Obama Student loan forgiveness program?


they probably make too much to qualify

----------


## AceNZ

> See, I should not have even brought up the charity thing.  1.) As a born-again Christian I believe that I am under no commandment to tithe 10%.  Instead, *I am to cheerfully give whatever I like from my heart*.  2.) I am not going to stop giving to church and charity so that I can buy a laptop.


That sounds an awful lot like a commandment to me: "I am to cheerfully give".

But if your giving was "cheerful," then you should also be happy with your resulting economic circumstances--which you clearly aren't.

If you want to continue giving, then perhaps you should add a couple of additional items to your list:

3) I am not going to complain about my economic circumstances, since they are of my own making.
4) I feel others have a claim on my life, and it is therefore my duty to give, no matter the consequences; the more I sacrifice, the better.

In case you think I'm exaggerating, #4 is the original Christian moral view, right?

----------


## cornell

Something doesn't add up as far as taxes go...are you sure you are maximizing your deductions? As other posters pointed out, medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI as well as charitable contributions will all count. Not to mention personal exemptions knock off another $7,000 or so.

----------


## well_met_sir

I was inclined to sympathy but clearly this guy isn't spending his money how he wants to.  If you want to give 10k to your church then do it.  Consider that your luxury good.  You get to spend 10k on the church.  Do the families making 20k have that option?  No.  Perhaps they would love to give 10k to their churches but they aren't able to afford that luxury.  Whole Foods/organic is all about status and has nothing to do with health.  The apples you buy at Whole Foods are no better than the apples that you get at a regular grocery store.

David Ramsey's advice only applies to people with higher incomes.  I'm not going to go so far as to call him a crank, but you typical Paul supporter can't learn anything from him.  He has absolutely nothing of value to say to someone who has to take a 40k/year job in a city where rent is 18k per year and student loans are 8k per year.

----------


## onlyrp

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ent...ome-family-mak

very similar story (but math is all wrong)

----------


## Johncjackson

> No offense, but even without knowing you, I can already state that I live with less than you.  I do not own a TV or pay for cable, you probably have both; I do not have Internet service in my house, you probably do; I have eaten out twice since September (this includes fast food, or something as simple as a burrito from a gas station), you surely have eaten out more than that this month alone; we do not use or pay for cell phones, you do; we have not gone to a movie theater, concert or sporting event in over five years, you have; we have not been on vacation (one that we did not even pay for, I might add) since 2008, you have; our $10 bed is from Craigslist and EVERY other piece of furniture was free from friends, family or Freecycle, you surely have some new furniture; this is the first winter we have paid to heat our house above 55 degrees, I know that your house has been warmer.  
> 
> We want her to be a stay at home mom, but we made the mistake of taking out student loans for college.  To pay well over $2k a month in student loans requires us to find good paying jobs; having good paying jobs means that over 30% of our income goes to taxes.  
> 
> If you believe you live more simply than me, and it saves you money, tell me where so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.


Where does your 100 grand go? I agree with the general sentiment of your post/premise but it seems exaggerated. I understand a big chunk goes to taxes and student loans but you still have a lot of income leftover. 

Yeah, the 20k people might get a lot of tax rebates and possibly food stamps and Medicaid ( Medicaid varies by state. In my state the children would get it but not the adults), but even with those handouts, I'm sure they are living on less than 40k. So I don't think that allows comparative luxury.

What kind of student loans do you and your wife have? Are they all private? I'm not going to claim to be an authority on student loan repayment, but I know that many have income based repayment options. I thought there was a 10% of income cap or something like that. I'm not saying I agree with that or not, just that there might be other options.

Your location says Kentucky. Again, I don't want to make assumptions- you live in a high cost of living area? I just know that my wife and I make way less than 6 figures. She has never worked but has loans from grad school, and I completely maxed out my student loans. They are in repayment. We have a house payment, 2 paid-off cars, 2 kids, 8 pets. We live in the Midwest, relatively low cost of living. We are doing just fine, and have multiple computers, internet, cable, Netflix and other subscriptions, kids go to camps, play sports, and take weekly lessons. We eat well- Dont shop at Whole Foods though ( and doubt your relatives do either). We have 5 cell phones but dont have any iPhones or data plans. We eat out more than I would like ( I detest paying for fast food and the unpleasant experience it brings).

----------


## onlyrp

> I was inclined to sympathy but clearly this guy isn't spending his money how he wants to.  If you want to give 10k to your church then do it.  Consider that your luxury good.  You get to spend 10k on the church.  Do the families making 20k have that option?  No.  Perhaps they would love to give 10k to their churches but they aren't able to afford that luxury. * Whole Foods/organic is all about status and has nothing to do with health.  The apples you buy at Whole Foods are no better than the apples that you get at a regular grocery store.*


exactly, organic food and vegetarian diet are liberal environmentalist scams .

----------


## onlyrp

> *Something doesn't add up as far as taxes go...are you sure you are maximizing your deductions?* As other posters pointed out, medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI as well as charitable contributions will all count. Not to mention personal exemptions knock off another $7,000 or so.


I am willing to bet he doesn't know anything about deductions and doesn't know how much he puts into savings each year. These are the type of people who don't know their math so they feel they can complain about poor people living better.

----------


## specsaregood

> exactly, organic food and vegetarian diet are liberal environmentalist scams .


fwiw: the biggest organic grocery store chain is run by a libertarian ron paul supporter, not a liberal.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

To the OP, I'd suggest that you talk to a Certified Financial Planner.

If you're paying an effective tax rate of 28% on an income of $85k, you're probably filing a 1040-EZ, and not even researching anything.  You should NEVER file an EZ, unless you have no deductions, period.

Also, was this combined income?  Because neither one of you are withheld at the 28% rate if it's combined.

Seriously, you need to talk with someone.

Either that, or you have just come on here to blast poor people.

----------


## dmo069

> David Ramsey's advice only applies to people with higher incomes.


Not at all. Ramsey advocates living within your means. That is good advice for any income level.

----------


## youngbuck

How much did you take out for student loans, and for what degree?

----------


## Sola_Fide

The answer is obvious.  Quit your job and move in with your relatives.

----------


## onlyrp

> The answer is obvious.  Quit your job and move in with your relatives.


lol, was that sarcastic?

----------


## Sola_Fide

lol

----------


## specsaregood

> lol, was that sarcastic?


Of course not!  We as a country have lived beyond our means for so long that much extended families living under one roof is inevitable.  just like many other 3rd world nations.  he might as well get a jump on things.

----------


## onlyrp

> Of course not!  We as a country have lived beyond our means for so long that much extended families living under one roof is inevitable.  just like many other 3rd world nations.  he might as well get a jump on things.


The funny thing is, that sounds like something *I* would say (minus the quit part), because I am very unsympathetic to people who either don't know their options, or make poor choices. Even less for people who think they make too much and are unfairly penalized to the point of being worse off making more. I didn't want to pat somebody on the back just yet if he was joking. I wouldn't say its inevitable, if there's enough empty houses, or if we can stop zoning and allow empty storefronts to become homes. But I totally agree with living within your means.

----------


## Tobias2dope

Yeah something doesn't add up. My advice is that God is more interested in you getting out of debt than he is in you giving money to your church, most churches don't need it. (I'm a Christian).


Personally my wife and I's situation is complicated, but I know we're at "poverty" level, 
we both have cheap phones, we shop at aldi's, we don't eat out a lot, we have a decent TV, pay for netflix, utilities, $300 for rent, , and we live pretty comfortably, this winter I kept the heat at about 60 degrees.  I still got about 2k in savings and bought a cheap laptop for my wife. No medical, though, and I don't have a lot of money to give to church, but I do when I have it, plus I play music 3 times a weak for them so I figure that's my tithe. We also take no government handouts of any kind.

Personally I consider giving to the Ron Paul Campaign a Christian Duty, on par with charity.

----------


## furface

> To the OP, I'd suggest that you talk to a Certified Financial Planner.
> 
> If you're paying an effective tax rate of 28% on an income of $85k, you're probably filing a 1040-EZ, and not even researching anything.  You should NEVER file an EZ, unless you have no deductions, period.
> 
> Also, was this combined income?  Because neither one of you are withheld at the 28% rate if it's combined.
> 
> Seriously, you need to talk with someone.
> 
> Either that, or you have just come on here to blast poor people.


No kids, no mortgage and 85k per year?  I can totally believe a 30% effective tax rate.  The MINIMUM federal tax rate is 14% for SS & medicare (including employer contributions).  FICA goes down eventually, but not at 85k.  It's bracketed, but the average federal rate from 0 to 85k is about 16% for married jointly.  That's 30% just federal, so with state+local then deductions and exemptions, 30% totally is plausible.  

But, personally I don't worry too much about people getting things like free medical care and food stamps from the government.  If governments are going to hand money out, it's better to hand it out to everyday people instead of government unions & bureaucrats who to a large degree are predatory towards honest, productive people in society.  

People who do nothing and spend money to keep the economy going are way less of a threat than government workers who claim to be giving us "services," much like a rapist "services" a rape victim.

It's very likely that we could get rid of the income tax and just tax pure resource consumption like gas taxes & have excise taxes and user fees and we'd be able to pay for a sort of "safety net" state.  A predatory bureaucratic military state like we have now requires big money that has to be aggressively taxed and printed.

----------


## raystone

> I applaude the OP for sticking with tithing.  God will bless you and don't listen to these guys!
> 
> If you haven't done Dave Ramsey's program I highly suggest it.
> 
> My husband and I made over $130k together before I quit to stay home with my kids.  We now get by on less than half.  It's because we live debt free.  Think about how this country is slaves to the fed.  Same thing with everyday debt.  Avoid it at ALLLLL costs!


I'm glad Dave Ramsey helped you.  I wouldn't recommend him to anyone in this forum.  He called Peter Schiff an idiot and called Schiff's financial advice ludicrous.
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1030.html

----------


## Aden

You guys keep leaving out state income tax, which is 6% in my state.  We're actually looking into moving to a state with no income tax.  

To the guy who suggested getting a house for a mortgage deduction, we hate debt, and want nothing more than student loans.  When those are paid off, we are not getting into debt again.  Besides, the 1k a month we pay for rent is far cheaper than the mortgages on the 400k+ houses in this part of town.  To find cheaper rent or houses requires us to move so far away from work that we can't walk and bike to work anymore.  We'd end up paying more in gas, car expenses and stress from traffic. 

I am intelligent enough to know about itemized deductions.  If we went this route it would have saved us a thousand dollars or so.  Big deal.  Did not want to itemize for $1k in savings because most IRS audits are geared to those who itemize.  In short, I do not want to risk the headaches for $1k in savings.  If it were significantly more than that, then of course I'd itemize.  

The student loans are well over six figures.  In the line of work one of us is in, most students graduate with over 150k in loans, lots of them over 200k or 300k.  We personally know coworkers who owe more than 300k.  You would be shocked at what kind of debt people are graduating with these days.  If you go to a public university, you are fine.  However, if you go to a private university as an undergrad, or a choose to go to any graduate school to pursue higher level education, chances are that you are graduating with tons of debt.  I made a poll last year here on RPF, asking how much debt people had.  Even people on this forum had over 300k in debt.

[edit] to the person who brought up Obama's loan repayment program that is based on income, it is a scam.  Those programs do limit the monthly payment, but they are stretched out over 25 years.  If we went this route and had remaining debt forgiven at 25 years, we still would have paid almost as much as if we just hurried up and paid the loans off in 10 years or less.  Besides, we want to pay back the full amount since the government stole the money from other tax payers; and we want to pay it back ASAP because we don't want to be in debt for 25 years.

----------


## Combs84

This thread is so full of crap it's not even funny.  If you guys make 100K a year, barely drive your cars and bike to work, never go out to eat, never go to entertainment shows/movies, don't have cell phones, cable or internet, never actually buy furniture, and haven't been on vacation in years...then I question absolutely everything you're saying.

Is it possible for people making 100K a year and barely being able to save money?  Absolutely.  If you have 2 car payments, a nice apartment, and student loans...sure it's likely you're not banking as much as you'd think.  But if you're saying you never buy anything else except for food and you're strapped for cash then you're just plain ole lying and stretching the truth.  You made the decision to go to college and put yourself in debt in 150-200K in debt.  You made the decision to get a nicer apartment, one that it sounds like you can't afford.  Sounds to me like you're just whining about paying 30% in taxes.  

Your family is living below the poverty level and you're acting like your jealous of them.  Get a 2nd job to pay for your loans, or start a side web business if you need more money.  Don't blame the government.

----------


## Aden

> Sounds to me like you're just whining about paying 30% in taxes.


  I am.  Glad you got the point of this thread.

----------


## furface

> Don't blame the government.


It's impossible not to when pretty much everything can be made better by making governments smaller.

----------


## Seraphim

Combs84 is the new Resident Doucher. Onlyrp has officially been supplanted.

Doucherz 4 lyfe, bitchezzz.

----------


## Roy L

> I am intelligent enough to know about itemized deductions.  If we went this route it would have saved us a thousand dollars or so.  Big deal.  Did not want to itemize for $1k in savings because most IRS audits are geared to those who itemize.  In short, I do not want to risk the headaches for $1k in savings.  If it were significantly more than that, then of course I'd itemize.


The IRS focuses on returns with a low effective tax rate, not just itemized deductions.  They know there is no point in going after people who already pay a high rate.  I would suggest taking all the deductions you can.  Also limiting your church/charitable giving to what you can deduct, and taking that deduction.



> The student loans are well over six figures.  In the line of work one of us is in, most students graduate with over 150k in loans, lots of them over 200k or 300k.  We personally know coworkers who owe more than 300k.  You would be shocked at what kind of debt people are graduating with these days.  If you go to a public university, you are fine.  However, if you go to a private university as an undergrad, or a choose to go to any graduate school to pursue higher level education, chances are that you are graduating with tons of debt.  I made a poll last year here on RPF, asking how much debt people had.  Even people on this forum had over 300k in debt.


The banksters want their something-for-nothing.  You are paying for it by getting nothing for something (your skilled labor).  Simple.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This thread is so full of crap it's not even funny.  If you guys make 100K a year, barely drive your cars and bike to work, never go out to eat, never go to entertainment shows/movies, don't have cell phones, cable or internet, never actually buy furniture, and haven't been on vacation in years...then I question absolutely everything you're saying.
> 
> Is it possible for people making 100K a year and barely being able to save money?  Absolutely.  If you have 2 car payments, a nice apartment, and student loans...sure it's likely you're not banking as much as you'd think.  But if you're saying you never buy anything else except for food and you're strapped for cash then you're just plain ole lying and stretching the truth.  You made the decision to go to college and put yourself in debt in 150-200K in debt.  You made the decision to get a nicer apartment, one that it sounds like you can't afford.  Sounds to me like you're just whining about paying 30% in taxes.  
> 
> Your family is living below the poverty level and you're acting like your jealous of them.  Get a 2nd job to pay for your loans, or start a side web business if you need more money.  *  Don't blame the government*.



Why not?

----------


## bbartlog

A lot of commenters seem to be missing the bigger point here. Even if it is not quite literally true that OP is worse off than those who make $20K, it is still ludicrous that it is even close. There's not a whole lot of incentive to 'move up', work hard and make a decent middle class income, if your real gains are partly eaten up by taxes and partly nonexistent because the government would have given you all that stuff for free anyway. I mean, suppose you make the case that OP is actually $10K per year better off (in some sense), rather than worse off, compared to those with a $20K income... that still means that the vast majority of the gains are completely eaten by government.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

welcome to land of the free home of the brave? Its almost better to own nothing at all now as long as you got a roof and food.

----------


## MelissaWV

Did your relatives have student loans?  It appears that you invested in your future earning potential, and did not make out very well.

Frankly, I live quite well on way below what you are taking in, but that also has to do with geography.  I also think that folks who believe it's dandy and easy to make it on very little have not actually been there.  Some folks have no scruples, and will be happy to live off of the Government.  It sounds like your family members do have jobs.  The wives are not working... who would pay for daycare/a sitter?  At a certain income level, it really does not pay to get a "second income" that only serves to pay for itself.

Do taxes suck?  Absolutely.  Is it all the evil Government's fault that the OP feels they live less comfortably than someone making $20k?  Absolutely not.

----------


## onlyrp

> You guys keep leaving out state income tax, which is 6% in my state.  We're actually looking into moving to a state with no income tax.


You're complaining about an additional 6% of your income, while you "cheerfully" donate 10% to charity? Did you even write it off as a deduction?

----------


## onlyrp

> No kids, no mortgage and 85k per year?  I can totally believe a 30% effective tax rate.  The MINIMUM federal tax rate is 14% for SS & medicare (including employer contributions).  FICA goes down eventually, but not at 85k.  It's bracketed, but the average federal rate from 0 to 85k is about 16% for married jointly.  That's 30% just federal, so with state+local then deductions and exemptions, 30% totally is plausible.  
> 
> *But, personally I don't worry too much about people getting things like free medical care and food stamps from the government.  If governments are going to hand money out, it's better to hand it out to everyday people instead of government unions & bureaucrats who to a large degree are predatory towards honest, productive people in society.*


Exactly. While I love to get free food stamps and free medical care, I am not that jealous they get it and I don't. Because the only harm done would be IF they fully used it and I fully did, while having to pay when I do. That's not the case, I don't use medical care (doomed if an emergency happens, but until then I'm saving that cost to take risk). They can try to sell their food stamps for cash, but they can't do that with medical services, as somebody mentioned above (I didn't even know), medical bills can be tax deductible, also, most jobs that pay above 50K have a benefits plan, don't they (assuming it's a salaried job, and not 1099)?

Last and most important difference is WHERE the poor people live, would you trade where you live to live where they are? If not, don't say they live better than you.

----------


## onlyrp

> I'm glad Dave Ramsey helped you.  I wouldn't recommend him to anyone in this forum.  He called Peter Schiff an idiot and called Schiff's financial advice ludicrous.
> http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1030.html


Dave Ramsey is good for people who need to learn being debt free. Which is common sense for any Peter Schiff or Ron Paul fan. I wouldn't trust him for savings or investment advice though.

----------


## onlyrp

> You guys keep leaving out state income tax, which is 6% in my state.  We're actually looking into moving to a state with no income tax.  
> 
> To the guy who suggested getting a house for a mortgage deduction, we hate debt, and want nothing more than student loans.


Buying a house with the intention of saving taxes is silly, it's not a way to save money, especially if you hate debt. 




> When those are paid off, we are not getting into debt again.  Besides, the 1k a month we pay for rent is far cheaper than the mortgages on the 400k+ houses in this part of town.  To find cheaper rent or houses requires us to move so far away from work that we can't walk and bike to work anymore.  We'd end up paying more in gas, car expenses and stress from traffic.


Looks like you made some good choices, that's good. So, let's get some more numbers on the table.
Forgive me for still not buying your story of "people making 20,000 live better than me". 

Take 2011 for example, tell us, how much did you make gross, and tell us what your expenses were, and how much, IF ANY did you end up putting into savings?




> I am intelligent enough to know about itemized deductions.  If we went this route it would have saved us a thousand dollars or so.  Big deal.  Did not want to itemize for $1k in savings because most IRS audits are geared to those who itemize.  In short, I do not want to risk the headaches for $1k in savings.  If it were significantly more than that, then of course I'd itemize.


$1,000 in net savings of taxes? Or a $1000 deduction from your income? 
If the former, that's your wife's laptop you're talking about, keep complaining.




> The student loans are well over six figures.


Surprise surprise! I bet your $20,000 relatives didn't get such a luxury.




> In the line of work one of us is in, most students graduate with over 150k in loans, lots of them over 200k or 300k.  We personally know coworkers who owe more than 300k.  You would be shocked at what kind of debt people are graduating with these days.


No, we'd be shock of how little some manage to graduate with. 




> If you go to a public university, you are fine.  However, if you go to a private university as an undergrad, or a choose to go to any graduate school to pursue higher level education, chances are that you are graduating with tons of debt.  I made a poll last year here on RPF, asking how much debt people had.  Even people on this forum had over 300k in debt.


Nobody was born smart, but some learn. It's the choices you make.




> [edit] to the person who brought up Obama's loan repayment program that is based on income, it is a scam.  Those programs do limit the monthly payment, but they are stretched out over 25 years.  If we went this route and had remaining debt forgiven at 25 years, we still would have paid almost as much as if we just hurried up and paid the loans off in 10 years or less.  Besides, we want to pay back the full amount since the government stole the money from other tax payers; and we want to pay it back ASAP because we don't want to be in debt for 25 years.


Yes, I am with you there, just pay it off ASAP. And look at all the luxuries you HAD and continue to have that your $20,000 relatives didn't and don't. They are NOT better off than you. Please tell me what I am missing.

----------


## onlyrp

> *Your family is living below the poverty level and you're acting like your jealous of them.*  Get a 2nd job to pay for your loans, or start a side web business if you need more money.  Don't blame the government.


He's jealous they don't have debt and get to eat out, and maybe they bought a new laptop he "can't afford" because he gives 10% of his paycheck to charity "cheerfully". and then says he doesn't want to risk getting audited so doesn't deduct them.....short of the government untaxing him or bailing out his student loans, doesn't sound like he'll ever be happy.

----------


## onlyrp

> I am.  Glad you got the point of this thread.


30% taxes is not compared to zero. It's compared to 10-15%.
Even people who get EITC or housing subsidies, have to have kids to effectively come close to tax free, yeah, they might actually be tax free and get some free cash, but hardly puts them above you in net.

----------


## onlyrp

> Why not?


because he's not even doing what he's allowed to do, such as itemize his donations. Therefore he is not "otherwise perfect" to be in the position to blame somebody else when he's not done his part fully. And in the end, if he can, he's more than free to surrender his high paying job if he's so convinced he's better off being paid less.

----------


## onlyrp

> A lot of commenters seem to be missing the bigger point here. Even if it is not quite literally true that OP is worse off than those who make $20K, it is still ludicrous that it is even close. There's not a whole lot of incentive to 'move up', work hard and make a decent middle class income, if your real gains are partly eaten up by taxes and partly nonexistent because the government would have given you all that stuff for free anyway. I mean, suppose you make the case that OP is actually $10K per year better off (in some sense), rather than worse off, compared to those with a $20K income... that still means that the vast majority of the gains are completely eaten by government.


Except even that is not true. 

Until he lists all the numbers, I am not buying his story. If he story is true, that he's working extra for nothing and better off making less, he can use the math to his advantage, and purposefully make less, we'll see how he likes it (He won't, because it's BS). 

He is far more than $10,000 per year better off, considering his donations to charity and student loans. He probably pays more in debt + donations per year than all his relatives make ($20,000 per year) in a year, so there is no comparison. 

The myth of "I want to make less, or donate my money away, so I can save on taxes" should go by now, I challenge somebody to prove it.

----------


## Arklatex

Who is that John Galt?

----------


## Gary4Liberty

My friend calls Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck"  hahahahah because its so expensive.

----------


## The Goat

150k in debt for a 100k a year income was your choice.

 just like when you were going to school, your still getting ready for your future. Sorry dude.

----------


## onlyrp

> My friend calls Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck"  hahahahah because its so expensive.


not inaccurate at all

----------


## onlyrp

> 150k in debt for a 100k a year income was your choice.
> 
>  just like when you were going to school, your still getting ready for your future. Sorry dude.


yeah, seriously. 
I think he meant $100K for combined 2 people, but still. 
Even $50K a year with $150K student debt is reasonable.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Both people made different decisions on what to do with their money.  Who may or may not be better off may depend on who you ask. Some are fine with not a lot of money- others feel they need more than they have- even if that is already more than most people (and $100k is certainly more than over half the people in the country).

----------


## Boss

the point here is that incentives are being stripped away from our society. the healthcare aspect is a big part of this. essentially one family is earning 500% of what the other family is earning, yet their lifestyles are perceptibly comparable. this is hardly the only example of the problem. even if OP budgeted in accordance with the "advice" given in this thread, the problem isn't solved, its only a little less obvious. take a guess at what happens to societies that have shrinking incentives to accumulate wealth?

----------


## dannno

> take a guess at what happens to societies that have shrinking incentives to accumulate wealth?


Production drops and everybody suffers.

----------


## onlyrp

> the point here is that incentives are being stripped away from our society. the healthcare aspect is a big part of this. essentially one family is earning 500% of what the other family is earning, yet their lifestyles are perceptibly comparable. this is hardly the only example of the problem. even if OP budgeted in accordance with the "advice" given in this thread, the problem isn't solved, its only a little less obvious. take a guess at what happens to societies that have shrinking incentives to accumulate wealth?


Perceptibly comparable? If you ignore 2 kids, donating 10% to charity, not itemizing them in taxes, and 6 figure student debt, then yeah. He has plenty of incentives to accummulate wealth, and if he doesn't, he's free to take a pay cut.

----------


## raystone

> Dave Ramsey is good for people who need to learn being debt free. Which is common sense for any Peter Schiff or Ron Paul fan. I wouldn't trust him for savings or investment advice though.


With him calling Schiff a nutjob, I certainly wouldn't patronize him or give him a nickel

----------


## Cowlesy

Can you refinance the student loans to a longer payback period?  This would give you some cushion during which time you could hopefully save off and pay them off in total in 10 years.  (I have only read page one of the thread and apologize in advance if someone already suggested this).

----------


## onlyrp

> Can you refinance the student loans to a longer payback period?  This would give you some cushion during which time you could hopefully save off and pay them off in total in 10 years.  (I have only read page one of the thread and apologize in advance if someone already suggested this).


he already said he wants to pay it off ASAP, then he says he doesn't itemize his deductions when donating 10% of his income, and he can't tell you how much he puts into savings each year. So you can ask "what's the point, what does he want?"

----------


## Cowlesy

Here is a $100,000 Gross Income, with $10,000 as an itemized deduction.  It looks like he should be around 21-22% all-in.

http://www.tax-rates.org/Kentucky/in...tor?do=process

Oops, you have to plug in the numbers.

Also, can't people under $100k deduct student loan interest??

----------


## onlyrp

> Here is a $100,000 Gross Income, with $10,000 as an itemized deduction.  It looks like he should be around 21-22% all-in.
> 
> http://www.tax-rates.org/Kentucky/in...tor?do=process
> 
> Oops, you have to plug in the numbers.
> 
> Also, can't people under $100k deduct student loan interest??


Sometimes
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc456.html

I used the page you provided, with $80,000 as starting income, and $8000 as deductions donated. 
He'd have $66,600 after all taxes, that is to say $4000 KY taxes, $9300 federal taxes.

If you used $100,000 gross, with $10,000 donated.
He's left with $81,000 net. 

So the difference between the claim that he pays 30% of his income in taxes, might be due to not taking deductions, or just poor math, unless we are missing something (this page includes state income tax).

----------


## onlyrp

The interesting thing is. 

If used Kentucky's standard deduction, filing joint. 
$100,000 , with zero deductions, he's still left with $81,000.
If that means any couple is automatically entitled to deduct $11,000 as it says on this page (standard Kentucky deduction), he has no reason to donate anything and can keep $10,000 to himself.

----------


## Jordan

I think you guys are overlooking FICA, which is like 15.3% in an ordinary tax year.  FICA is a killer for people who make in the range he's talking about.

----------


## onlyrp

Contrast this guy's account with this one. They can't both be right. Unless, the key difference being that people with kids qualify for more handouts. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4195030

One guy says the person making $20,000 a year lives better than him making $100K. The other guy says people making $20,000 can't even pay his bills, and making $50,000 isn't enough because he "only" saves $10,000 a year. Both can be wrong though, as neither will list you all their actual expenses, one admits he's not perfectly frugal, one admits he doesn't take his allowed deductions and donates to charity.

----------


## Professor8000

> I know it's my own fault, for taking out student loans before I realized what a sham they are. I just needed to vent.


This is why I never went to College. Internet FTW! So I was wondering... I make 20k a year, how do I get in on some of that lucrative welfare business that you so generously donate to?

----------


## patriot2008

I get sick of hearing about food and diets from my in laws.  It is totally a fit in trend and keep up with the people around you, if you are not year round organic gardener.
  Yes and whole foods is even cheap compared to some markets.  My mother in law easily spends more money on eating, including eating out than I spend feeding on our family of four, and all this is without any meat at all. The rest she uses on credit card bills.  We live a way better in a different town and state than her.

----------


## tttppp

> This country sucks.  I get so frustrated at times that I find myself wishing for a collapse in hopes that the welfare freebies go away.  I just did my taxes, and had conversations--in one case, a heated argument--with family who did taxes too.  Here is modern Amerika for you.
> 
> My wife and I are pulling in 85k - 100k a year.  Because we "make so much," we do not qualify for government handouts.  Between federal, state and local taxes, 30%+ of our income goes to government right off the bat.  Then over 20% goes to student loans.  We live in a nice two-bedroom apartment and can afford to eat healthy food (Whole Foods, organics, etc).  But we are not rich--we have not been on vacation in almost four years; my wife has wanted/needed a new Macbook for a year but we can't afford one; we buy most of our clothes from the thrift store; we have only been out to eat two times since September; we never pay money for entertainment such as concerts, football games, movie theaters, etc.  
> 
> Two different sets of relatives of mine make around 20k a year.  In both families the wife does not work, only the husband.  One of them makes like $10 an hour at a big-box store, the other probably makes $12ish at a hospital.  One family is expecting a third child, the other the second.  This means that both families get enough tax credits so that they get way more money than they pay in--one is getting almost $10k "back" this April.  Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills, these guys get Medicaid; and for all I know are on food stamps and who knows what else.  Both families seem to eat out as much as they want, pay for entertainment, and in the last 6 months have gone on vacation.  
> 
> In short, because our government is playing Robbin Hood, we have relatives and families in my church who make a fraction of what we make, but live better lifestyles than we do.


You're account of making $100,000 a year not adding up to much seems pretty accurate. Unless you are rich, the money you make usually only covers the basics. Jobs just give you enough to afford to make it back to work the next day.

I'm not sure about your account of people making $20,000 year. I don't know anyone making $20,000 a year who can live on their own without assistance. People making $20,000 a year don't afford nice apartments or shop at whole foods. They live with their parents.

You are right that you are being scammed, but the people making $20,000 are being scammed too. People making a good living with a good job should be able to afford more than the basics. People doing hard labor should also be able to at least make a living and afford the basics without government handouts.

----------


## tttppp

> Contrast this guy's account with this one. They can't both be right. Unless, the key difference being that people with kids qualify for more handouts. 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4195030
> 
> One guy says the person making $20,000 a year lives better than him making $100K. The other guy says people making $20,000 can't even pay his bills, and making $50,000 isn't enough because he "only" saves $10,000 a year. Both can be wrong though, as neither will list you all their actual expenses, one admits he's not perfectly frugal, one admits he doesn't take his allowed deductions and donates to charity.


My account is completely accurate. My parents have been frequently sending money to my brother who makes roughly $20,000 a year. And he is stingy too. He doesn't waste money on anything. One thing you should consider though is that this guy apparently lives in Kentucky. My brother lives in L.A.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

the folks above who have touched on finding a better student loan agency are right.  I am in the process of paying back my Sallie Mae and Direct Loans loans.  The payments are only a little over $100/month for each (~$200 total), and over time the minimum payment has gotten lower.  (with DL, my minimum is now 0, but I keep paying because I want it over with)  If I had my druthers I'd consolidate with Direct Loans because their service is better-but it seems more hassle than it's worth.

----------


## Roy L

> take a guess at what happens to societies that have shrinking incentives to accumulate wealth?


They thrive, because "accumulating" wealth usually means engaging in wasteful rent-seeking behavior, not PRODUCING wealth.  Look at the _trillions_ the banksters have _accumulated_ -- i.e., shoveled into their own pockets -- in the last four years, with not a jot of real _wealth_ production among the whole lot of them.  How is that workin' out for ya?

----------


## onlyrp

> You're account of making $100,000 a year not adding up to much seems pretty accurate. Unless you are rich, the money you make usually only covers the basics. Jobs just give you enough to afford to make it back to work the next day.


he didn't say "just cover the basics" or "not adding up", being able to pay student debt and donate 10% of your income "cheerfully" to charity, is not "just the basics", of course he won't tell us how much he's saving up. So how about you tell us what your situation is now.  What do you make now, what are your current expenses, and how much do you save a year? I'm not asking you whether you are motivated to keep working or whether you have more than basics. I'm not letting you get away easy by keep saying "I got just the basics". I expect from the both of you, actual numbers and actual items. 




> I'm not sure about your account of people making $20,000 year. I don't know anyone making $20,000 a year who can live on their own without assistance. People making $20,000 a year don't afford nice apartments or shop at whole foods. They live with their parents.


He didn't say they have nice apartments, but he did say they get $10k "back" from the government for having kids. I'm not sure if $10K is going to outdo the cost of having kids, so I'd still want to hear how he gets the idea they are better off than him (or even better off than your brother). 




> You are right that you are being scammed, but the people making $20,000 are being scammed too. People making a good living with a good job should be able to afford more than the basics. People doing hard labor should also be able to at least make a living and afford the basics without government handouts.


This is where the two of you fundamentally disagree, he seems to suggest government handouts make people making $20,000 better off than him who makes $100,000, he has yet to account for the actual details.

----------


## onlyrp

> My account is completely accurate. My parents have been frequently sending money to my brother who makes roughly $20,000 a year. And he is stingy too. He doesn't waste money on anything. One thing you should consider though is that this guy apparently lives in Kentucky. My brother lives in L.A.


I understand living in Los Angeles and Connecticut may be higher than many other States in the country (such as Kentucky). I don't doubt your brother actually gets money from his parents, so I'd love to hear more details.

From you, how much do you make, and how much do you save a year (now)?
What are your brother's expenses, and how much assistance does he get from your parents? (I mentioned earlier in the other thread, your brother's income may qualify him for cheap rent apartments, about $600 a month, I know people who live there, they're small, but that's how you "live within your means")
How exactly does this guy's relatives get "better off" by whatever handouts they qualify for?

----------


## rockerrockstar

Wasting 10% percent on charity and church seems to be a big problem.  Why are you giving away money to them when you need the money.  You should help yourself out before others.

You student loans seem excessive I guess that is for two people.  If it is a grand each maybe not so bad.  But still seems high to me.  Why are you paying more than the minimum payments the interest rates should be super low on school loans and the interest is tax deductable.  You should wait tell you have a good pay raise before paying extra on these.

----------


## onlyrp

> Wasting 10% percent on charity and church seems to be a big problem.  Why are you giving away money to them when you need the money.  You should help yourself out before others.
> 
> You student loans seem excessive I guess that is for two people.  If it is a grand each maybe not so bad.  But still seems high to me.  Why are you paying more than the minimum payments the interest rates should be super low on school loans and the interest is tax deductable.  You should wait tell you have a good pay raise before paying extra on these.


He doesn't need a pay raise, he already is committed to paying it off in 10-15 years, so it sounds like he's paying as much as he can. Many people have already said, he shouldn't donate, not deduct it on taxes, and then complain about it. I don't want to keep speculating, I just want him to show more numbers if he wants any sympathy points.

----------


## AceNZ

> You guys keep leaving out state income tax, which is 6% in my state.  We're actually looking into moving to a state with no income tax.


One of the few sane things in this thread. 




> To the guy who suggested getting a house for a mortgage deduction, we hate debt, and want nothing more than student loans.  When those are paid off, we are not getting into debt again.  Besides, the 1k a month we pay for rent is far cheaper than the mortgages on the 400k+ houses in this part of town.  To find cheaper rent or houses requires us to move so far away from work that we can't walk and bike to work anymore.  We'd end up paying more in gas, car expenses and stress from traffic.


You pay more, but you also build asset value while reducing the high effective tax rate you're complaining about.




> I am intelligent enough to know about itemized deductions.  If we went this route it would have saved us a thousand dollars or so.  Big deal.  Did not want to itemize for $1k in savings because most IRS audits are geared to those who itemize.  In short, I do not want to risk the headaches for $1k in savings.  If it were significantly more than that, then of course I'd itemize.


You've got to be kidding me. You're bitching about high tax rates and you're giving the gov't $1K more each year than they legally require?

Oh, FWIW, the risk of audit is not necessarily higher just because you itemize. Even if it was, tax audits aren't the end of the world. You're really so afraid that you're willing to throw away $1K a year to hopefully reduce audit risk?




> The student loans are well over six figures. In the line of work one of us is in, most students graduate with over 150k in loans, lots of them over 200k or 300k.


I hope your degree wasn't in finance. If it was, man did you get screwed. Truly, based on the comments in this thread, it's no wonder that some people have a hard time getting by on $100K/yr.

----------


## AceNZ

> I am not going to stop giving to church and charity so that I can buy a laptop.


OK, I understand.

Let me restate what you're saying: it's more important to you to give money to people who didn't earn it and who you probably don't even know than it is to provide for yourself and your family, and in the process also support people who actually work for a living, doing things like building, selling and shipping computers (and everything that goes into them).

Gotcha.

In case anyone is wondering WHY the gov now takes 28%+ in taxes, it's *exactly* that same kind of logic.

----------


## MadOdorMachine

I think the OP is right to a certain degree. I have a sister in law who has no job, has 3 kids (and a 4th on the way) by the same man and isn't married. The boyfriend has never had a steady job either - most of the time he's unemployed and running the streets. She and her kids live in the same house which my mother in law owns. Their cupboards are overflowing with food, they have free medicaid and even get perscription drugs prescribed to them on a regular basis. I once asked my sister in law why they don't get married. The answer - because she would lose all the wellfare. We live in a society that encourages this. It's bad for the economy, but even worse, it's creating a generation of father-less children. It's destroying the family.

I don't know what his financial situation is (debt vs. income ratio) of the OP, but he has a much better chance at being successful in the future. Renting right now and paying off your college loans is a great idea imo. I do think you should buy a house/condo eventually though even if it's a cheap one. If you own your house, that's one less bill to pay.

----------


## JuicyG

> OK, I understand.
> 
> Let me restate what you're saying: it's more important to you to give money to people who didn't earn it and who you probably don't even know than it is to provide for yourself and your family, and in the process also support people who actually work for a living, doing things like building, selling and shipping computers (and everything that goes into them).
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> In case anyone is wondering WHY the gov now takes 28%+ in taxes, it's *exactly* that same kind of logic.


I believe God is pretty self-sufficient. Don`t think he needs money. I also don `t believe he needs money to spread his message since he`s all powerful and all mighty. 

Regarding charity, I believe you can really make a difference once you`re self-sufficient yourself. You`re not self-sufficient if you still have credit and loans to pay.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

I'm reading through the responses here and I'm still very confused as to what the OP's issues are, outside of him making choices which put him in the financial position he's in.  I do sympathize with his point about people who make more and strive for more getting bent over by the government to subsidize those who don't try to do better.  Yes, I understand that, and it does lead to people becoming lazy and dependent.  That's what the left wants.  The left also wants EXACTLY (minus the church donations) what the OP is doing.  They want you to get overburdened by student loan debt.  They want you living in an apartment "close" to your "job", so you can "walk" or "bike".  They want you to shop at Whole Foods.  They want you paying an effective tax rate of 30%.  You are making the perfect argument against "smart growth" and "smart planning", and you don't even realize it.

Ron Paul has said that your are supposed to take all of your deductions.  When you itemize, you also get to deduct your Kentucky withholding from your Federal.

I applaud your efforts in trying to get out of debt as fast as you can, but you really have to sit down and figure out where your money is going each month.

No offense to Kentuckians, but I'm finding it very difficult to believe that there's anywhere in Kentucky that the average house price for a 1,500-2,000 sq. ft. home is anywhere near $400k.  That's the average price in North Jersey/NYC area and the DC area.  It sounds like you don't really "own" anything, so I don't really think you need anything larger, especially if you're currently living in an apartment.

Why are you afraid of an audit?  Your return is so simple, they won't even bat an eyelash over it.  You could even make up deductions (as long as there is some proof) and they wouldn't look at it.  It's when you start doing it for five or six years and really cheating is when they look at it.

I'm evangelical also, but my fear is your church has you believing things that just aren't true.

----------


## Paul Fan

It is interesting that many people are suggesting the OP cut back the tithe, when the better answer is to cut back the taxes - which is exactly what he's trying to do by supporting Dr. Paul.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> It is interesting that many people are suggesting the OP cut back the tithe, when the better answer is to cut back the taxes - which is exactly what he's trying to do by supporting Dr. Paul.


Nothing wrong with him tithing, but there is something wrong with him for not taking the deduction.  I think that's what most people are saying.  If he's not going to take the deduction, he shouldn't be giving so much to the church.

And yes, we all want taxes to go down and be eliminated, but that isn't the reality right now.

----------


## xFiFtyOnE

I understand frustrations with welfare abusers but to say someone who is raising a family with $20k a year is doing better than someone that makes 100k a year is simply absurd.  If your frustrations are in the fact that you can't "eat out" as much as the people living in poverty you should probably reconsider your life style.  Ever hear the phrase "more money, more problems"...most of those problems are self created.

This post kind of reminds me of my former boss(he got promoted...LOL).  He came from a wealthy family, got a job here makeing between $100k to 120k, is my estimate.  Always complained about his debt and hardships.  The guy owned a nice 2 story house, 2 brand new SUVs, a couple jet skies, a boat that was basically a yacht...no telling about the stuff I didn't know about.  He was at the office MAYBE 30 hours a week.  Most of that time was spent looking at porn or fishing equipment on the internet.  Where as I spend 50 or more hours a week at work busting my ass and have yet to see a $40k year.  Cry me a river.  But as Bill O'Reilly says "poor folks in America have TV and air conditioning", that makes up for it right?

Your starting pay is 100,000.  You pay 20,000 in student loans, 20%.  You pay 30,000 in taxes, 30%.  I'm going to give a generous estimate of 10,000 for healthcare (10%) to offset that free gov'ment healthcare...that as far as I know only covers children, the elderly and disabled.  After all that you still take home 40k...*double* your 20k making relatives.  Your wallet must have a leak that you don't know about.

----------


## moostraks

> You guys keep leaving out state income tax, which is 6% in my state.  We're actually looking into moving to a state with no income tax.  
> 
> To the guy who suggested getting a house for a mortgage deduction, we hate debt, and want nothing more than student loans.  When those are paid off, we are not getting into debt again.  Besides, the 1k a month we pay for rent is far cheaper than the mortgages on the 400k+ houses in this part of town.  To find cheaper rent or houses requires us to move so far away from work that we can't walk and bike to work anymore.  We'd end up paying more in gas, car expenses and stress from traffic. 
> 
> I am intelligent enough to know about itemized deductions.  If we went this route it would have saved us a thousand dollars or so.  Big deal.  Did not want to itemize for $1k in savings because most IRS audits are geared to those who itemize.  In short, I do not want to risk the headaches for $1k in savings.  If it were significantly more than that, then of course I'd itemize.  
> 
> The student loans are well over six figures.  In the line of work one of us is in, most students graduate with over 150k in loans, lots of them over 200k or 300k.  We personally know coworkers who owe more than 300k.  You would be shocked at what kind of debt people are graduating with these days.  If you go to a public university, you are fine.  However, if you go to a private university as an undergrad, or a choose to go to any graduate school to pursue higher level education, chances are that you are graduating with tons of debt.  I made a poll last year here on RPF, asking how much debt people had.  Even people on this forum had over 300k in debt.
> 
> [edit] to the person who brought up Obama's loan repayment program that is based on income, it is a scam.  Those programs do limit the monthly payment, but they are stretched out over 25 years.  If we went this route and had remaining debt forgiven at 25 years, we still would have paid almost as much as if we just hurried up and paid the loans off in 10 years or less.  Besides, we want to pay back the full amount since the government stole the money from other tax payers; and we want to pay it back ASAP because we don't want to be in debt for 25 years.


At the risk of piling on, I have to say you are making choices and with your choices comes accepting the consequences. As a Christian you need to stop minding your relatives backyard. You are looking at this as an outsider looking in. Walk a mile in their shoes before passing judgement. You have the money to make choices and they are living according to someone else's requirements.

You live in a neighborhood with $400,000 then living expenses could be less. This is a choice. I seriously doubt the $20,000 + children live in that type of neighborhood. You don't want to take on more debt so you will rent? You need to prioritize. So you are okay with paying $1000/month indefinately? Your choice but dumb imo. Move to cheap, yeah dirt cheap housing, get a cheap, yes rust bucket cheap car. Save money and pay for your luxuries ($400,000 house and cadillac organic diet) after you have enough money to afford them. You know being able to run the heat and such! You bought into the status stuff from the sounds of things and are cutting corners to keep the chosen lifestyle. 

Might want to look into some books on voluntary simplicity to break the cycle you are in. If you owned your housing outright then you only have annual taxes to pay. Of course you won't live in that $400,000 neighborhood. At least not right away. Many/most cities have foreclosures for cheap. So you might still be pedestrian. 

Seems sort of like you are just venting because your choices aren't paying off how you expected. Welcome to life! Try some out of the box thinking to achieve the lifestyle you want rather than thinking just because you make x amount of dollars or chose a career that was sold to you, you should have a certain lifestyle. You sound really bitter from reading your post and life is too short to buy into the class warfare nonsense that you are stewing about. If you don't like where you are at then make some attempt to change it or continue to expect more of the same...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This country sucks.  I get so frustrated at times that I find myself wishing for a collapse in hopes that the welfare freebies go away.  I just did my taxes, and had conversations--in one case, a heated argument--with family who did taxes too.  Here is modern Amerika for you.
> 
> My wife and I are pulling in 85k - 100k a year.  Because we "make so much," we do not qualify for government handouts.  Between federal, state and local taxes, 30%+ of our income goes to government right off the bat.  Then over 20% goes to student loans.  We live in a nice two-bedroom apartment and can afford to eat healthy food (Whole Foods, organics, etc).  But we are not rich--we have not been on vacation in almost four years; my wife has wanted/needed a new Macbook for a year but we can't afford one; we buy most of our clothes from the thrift store; we have only been out to eat two times since September; we never pay money for entertainment such as concerts, football games, movie theaters, etc.  
> 
> Two different sets of relatives of mine make around 20k a year.  In both families the wife does not work, only the husband.  One of them makes like $10 an hour at a big-box store, the other probably makes $12ish at a hospital.  One family is expecting a third child, the other the second.  This means that both families get enough tax credits so that they get way more money than they pay in--one is getting almost $10k "back" this April.  Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills, these guys get Medicaid; and for all I know are on food stamps and who knows what else.  Both families seem to eat out as much as they want, pay for entertainment, and in the last 6 months have gone on vacation.  
> 
> In short, because our government is playing Robbin Hood, we have relatives and families in my church who make a fraction of what we make, but live better lifestyles than we do.


I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're as poor as you're making it sound.  If you take out 50% of your income for student loans and taxes, you still make around $50k/year.  That's about twice as much as I do and I am a stranger to the things you mentioned.  There's no way you are that poor with a 100k income.  Those people making $50k a year are considered to make a good living to most people where I live and that is with taxes taken out.  Even with taxes taken out, you probably make more than they do because they are paying from a gross income of 50k and you have a NET income of that.  Did you fail to mention any other debts you are currently paying?  Like one poster said, if you think you are strapped now, try saving one income and living off the other.  It's really not that hard unless you live in San FranCisco, but it looks like you live in Nowhere, Kentucky, so I fail to see how it is really that bad for you.

----------


## revned

My post goes in a slightly different direction than previously mentioned.

I've heard of people living off of less than 8k of their own money per year and living in a camper in a Wal Mart parking lot that talk about living happier lives than they ever did making 30K+ living in a standard home. I really think it all boils down to the fact that people who make less money typically have less external stress to deal with. They don't have to rely on others or have others rely on them to get a job done.

I have often thought, which would I rather be? A slave to society where 33% of my paycheck isn't even mine and I have to deal with everyone else's problems. Or would I rather be a slave to myself, having to deal with more straight-forward problems like having to grow my own food and find and treat my own water.

Self sufficiency is where it's all at in my opinion and this is what I'm working towards in my life.

----------


## Joshua2585

Thank you to the OP for stimulating such an interesting discussion. I have about 30-35k in undergrad debt. I am having trouble finding a job. I am 26. Graduated December 2010, got a job in August 2011, layed off in December 2011. Haven't found a job since. I've been unemployed for two months. My family has encouraged me to collect unemployment, but I refuse. I luckily had enough money in my bank account to live for a couple months. Funds are running low, though. I am currently defaulting on all of my student loans. Not much I can really do. I live with my sisters in a house that is paid off, which was a blessing and a curse, as my father had to die of brain cancer for us to receive it. I still drop about 300 a month on bills. Thank God for family.

I have made some poor financial decisions. I plan to remedy them as quickly as possible. I understand your frustration with people that live well beyond their means by collecting from government programs. I don't think it is the fact that they live better than you, but they sure live about on equal footing. The welfare state is truly destroying this country, but not only that, it is ruining this country's biggest asset... human capital.

I live in OK right now. I am planning on re-locating to Denver in the next two weeks in search of greener grass. My plans are similar to yours. Get debt free as soon as possible and stay that way. I plan on living a life of relative luxury, but our ideas of that might be different. I won't ever buy a new car, as the things we own often own us. I want to pay for things in cash. I want to have free time and hopefully the opportunity to travel. I don't want pets or dogs. I just want a travel buddy. I am excited for life. Don't worry about your moocher friends and family. 

QUIT GIVING TO CHARITY, as you already do (taxes). This is honestly the only way to feel good about paying taxes and seeing other people feed off the welfare state. Look at them and say, "Aww, that is my charity that makes it possible for them to have a decent life." Obviously, keep the thought to yourself. lol

----------


## Joshua2585

I agree w revned. Great first post!

----------


## Sam I am

> No offense, but even without knowing you, I can already state that I live with less than you.  I do not own a TV or pay for cable, you probably have both; I do not have Internet service in my house, you probably do; I have eaten out twice since September (this includes fast food, or something as simple as a burrito from a gas station), you surely have eaten out more than that this month alone; we do not use or pay for cell phones, you do; we have not gone to a movie theater, concert or sporting event in over five years, you have; we have not been on vacation (one that we did not even pay for, I might add) since 2008, you have; our $10 bed is from Craigslist and EVERY other piece of furniture was free from friends, family or Freecycle, you surely have some new furniture; this is the first winter we have paid to heat our house above 55 degrees, I know that your house has been warmer.  
> 
> We want her to be a stay at home mom, but we made the mistake of taking out student loans for college.  To pay well over $2k a month in student loans requires us to find good paying jobs; having good paying jobs means that over 30% of our income goes to taxes.  
> 
> If you believe you live more simply than me, and it saves you money, tell me where so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.


No offense, but even without knowing you, I can already state that I live with less than you.  I do not own a TV or pay for cable, you probably have both; I do not have Internet service in my house, you probably do; I have eaten out twice since September (this includes fast food, or something as simple as a burrito from a gas station), you surely have eaten out more than that this month alone; we do not use or pay for cell phones, you do; we have not gone to a movie theater, concert or sporting event in over five years, you have; we have not been on vacation (one that we did not even pay for, I might add) since 2008, you have; our $10 bed is from Craigslist and EVERY other piece of furniture was free from friends, family or Freecycle, you surely have some new furniture; this is the first winter we have paid to heat our house above 55 degrees, I know that your house has been warmer.  

We want her to be a stay at home mom, but we made the mistake of taking out student loans for college.  To pay well over $2k a month in student loans requires us to find good paying jobs; having good paying jobs means that over 30% of our income goes to taxes.  

If you believe you live more simply than me, and it saves you money, tell me where so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.

----------


## Danke

> I live in OK right now. I am planning on re-locating to Denver in the next two weeks in search of greener grass.

----------


## tttar

> A lot of commenters seem to be missing the bigger point here. Even if it is not quite literally true that OP is worse off than those who make $20K, it is still ludicrous that it is even close. There's not a whole lot of incentive to 'move up', work hard and make a decent middle class income, if your real gains are partly eaten up by taxes and partly nonexistent because the government would have given you all that stuff for free anyway. I mean, suppose you make the case that OP is actually $10K per year better off (in some sense), rather than worse off, compared to those with a $20K income... that still means that the vast majority of the gains are completely eaten by government.


Finally, someone gets it. I was wondering if I was on the right forum, after reading some of the responses. "He just wants to diss the poor" is about what they say at TNR also, about a similar article:

http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/con...rt-fox-de-rugy

----------


## cornell

Student loan interest is deductible regardless of itemizing or not. If this is a huge expense of the OP's, it should significantly lower their taxable income. Charitable contributions are deductible if you itemize, state taxes paid are deductible if you itemize, medical expenses are deductible (if over 7.5% AGI) if you itemize. 

There is NO reason not to itemize if it lowers your tax! NONE AT ALL! People are not selectively audited if they itemize deductions with standard expenses such as medical, state taxes, charitable contributions, etc. To pass up $1,000 in tax savings out of fear of an audit (keep in mind only 1% of total taxpayers get audited, most of them with incomes far over $100,000) is just foolish.

If the OP is making $80,000 there is no way they are paying 30% in taxes unless they are doing something seriously wrong on their tax return.

----------


## tttar

> If the OP is making $80,000 there is no way they are paying 30% in taxes unless they are doing something seriously wrong on their tax return.


Marginal rates at $80,000, if married:

7.65% SS and Medicare (15.3%, with half of it deductible, if self-employed)
15% federal
6% state

So he's paying a marginal rate of at least 28.65%, with the effective rate of course being lowered by deductions, and lower rates being applied to part of his income.

Plus he has student loans he needed to take out, to be able to make the $80,000. And all the free stuff that isn't being handed to him. And the extra leisure time he would have had, were he to work fewer hours. (That would apply to other examples, not so much the $20,000 full-timer.)

He's still better off financially at $80,000 than someone making $20,000, but I thought the idea around here was that he should be $60,000 better off. I must have stumbled onto the Socialist Worker's Party forum.  ;-)

----------


## Travlyr

"Our goal is gradually to absorb the wealth of the world." - Cecil Rhodes, "The secret banking cabal"

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." - Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President, Bank of England (2nd richest man in England)

"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People vs. The Banks." - Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875

"Power concedes nothing without demand." - Frederick Douglass

"Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

The Purse & The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.

----------


## furface

> 7.65% SS and Medicare (15.3%, with half of it deductible, if self-employed)
> 15% federal
> 6% state


Actually a more accurate way of counting SS & Medicare is to count both the employee & employer contribution.  The employer sees a bottom line cost to hire an employee & that includes his FICA contribution.  15.3% would normally be the accurate number, but they keep messing with it with the "payroll tax cut" that Congress is arguing about.

That bottom line would also naturally include things like unemployment insurance, training tax, etc.  Also includes medical insurance, but not to start another firestorm argument, I actually somewhat agree with mandated medical insurance.  We obviously need more competition in the industry, but you're either paying for it yourself or you're letting someone else pay for it, which isn't fair.  Give up your right to walk into an ER without insurance and get treated, and your right to Medicaid/Medicare, and I'll agree with you that you shouldn't be required to purchase medical insurance.

----------


## onlyrp

> Finally, someone gets it. I was wondering if I was on the right forum, after reading some of the responses. "He just wants to diss the poor" is about what they say at TNR also, about a similar article:
> 
> http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/con...rt-fox-de-rugy


No, that guy doesn't quite get it either, the OP is a lot more than "just $10,000 above those making $20,000"

Even Rush Limbaugh fell for that article, which was here, and originally on a local newspaper site
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ent...ome-family-mak

TNR article is somewhat fair, it's bad math on Emmerich's end, and if it's true, he's free to take a pay cut.
http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/con...rt-fox-de-rugy

The problem with his math is, he counts all benefits as cash, that's just stupid. Here's the FACTS : IF we assumed a minimum wage family made only $15,000 a year, paid zero taxes, took EITC, spend ZERO on housing, food, and sold all their food stamps for CASH. *The MAX they can save in cash a year is $26,000.* This is $15000 wages, $5000 EITC and $6000 food stamps. 

A family making $60,000, after taxes, will have roughly $47,000. Those who DO make this much, typically have a benefits plan in their job, meaning their medical costs will unlikely be $10-16K a year (but it varies). Now we can ask, does the $60,000 family WANT to live in the houses min wage families do? Do they WANT to eat the things they do? If so, they can save a hell lot. If the $60,000 family is so convinced they can be better off making just $15,000, nobody is stopping them for taking a pay cut and applying for those benefits, *I dare ONE person to show he can.*

Similarly, OP here is not even sure what he's complaining about. He can't tell us how much money he puts into savings each year, he has student debt that his $20,000 relative never qualified for, he gives to charity 10% of his money. He's unhappy he can't eat out like they do, but he's also not giving us enough to subtract from his $80,000 combined income, something just isn't adding up.

I explained more here, or others have better than me.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ohedge-article

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Marginal rates at $80,000, if married:
> 
> 7.65% SS and Medicare (15.3%, with half of it deductible, if self-employed)
> 15% federal
> 6% state
> 
> So he's paying a marginal rate of at least 28.65%, with the effective rate of course being lowered by deductions, and lower rates being applied to part of his income.
> 
> Plus he has student loans he needed to take out, to be able to make the $80,000. And all the free stuff that isn't being handed to him. And the extra leisure time he would have had, were he to work fewer hours. (That would apply to other examples, not so much the $20,000 full-timer.)
> ...


Marginal rate of course not the same as the average rate- what is paid on all income. That (the marginal) rate is the tax rate applied to the last dollar earned.  It does not include any tax deductions or exmptions which will lower the average rate.

----------


## onlyrp

> Marginal rates at $80,000, if married:
> 
> 7.65% SS and Medicare (15.3%, with half of it deductible, if self-employed)
> 15% federal
> 6% state
> 
> So he's paying a marginal rate of at least 28.65%, with the effective rate of course being lowered by deductions, and lower rates being applied to part of his income.
> 
> Plus he has student loans he needed to take out, to be able to make the $80,000. And all the free stuff that isn't being handed to him. And the extra leisure time he would have had, were he to work fewer hours. (That would apply to other examples, not so much the $20,000 full-timer.)
> ...


Student loans is a luxury he chose, not a government theft. He doesn't want to claim his donations for deduction but then complains he "can't afford" a new laptop, LMAO.

----------


## onlyrp

> *If the OP is making $80,000 there is no way they are paying 30% in taxes unless they are doing something seriously wrong on their tax return.*


No kidding, this is not tax evasion conspiracy theory, this is fully legal, he can consult ANY attorney and accountant, if he doesn't know his rights, who does he blame? The poor relatives aren't scamming anybody either, they just do what they're allowed and know how to enjoy life. He claims he "cheerfully" donates 10% away, then he complains he can't eat out or buy a new laptop for his wife (not sure why she needs a laptop if there's no internet at home).

----------


## furface

> Student loans is a luxury he chose, not a government theft.


I agree, but the issue is somewhat complex.  We're stuck in a market where people are forced to pay extraordinary fees for college education.  It's a classic "prisoner's dilemma" economics issue.  The government needs to get rid of student loan guarantees completely.  All they do is perpetuate a costly, inefficient, and archaic education system.  One person can't buck the system by himself, though.

----------


## onlyrp

> My post goes in a slightly different direction than previously mentioned.
> 
> I've heard of people living off of less than 8k of their own money per year and living in a camper in a Wal Mart parking lot that talk about living happier lives than they ever did making 30K+ living in a standard home. I really think it all boils down to the fact that people who make less money typically have less external stress to deal with. They don't have to rely on others or have others rely on them to get a job done.
> 
> I have often thought, which would I rather be? A slave to society where 33% of my paycheck isn't even mine and I have to deal with everyone else's problems. Or would I rather be a slave to myself, having to deal with more straight-forward problems like having to grow my own food and find and treat my own water.
> 
> Self sufficiency is where it's all at in my opinion and this is what I'm working towards in my life.


If you can put a dollar value on stress, go for it. Like many have already said, it's the choices you make. OP says he only pays $1000 for housing, and he doesnt have cable, tv, internet, cellphones, or need to drive to work, he also buys most clothes used. So all that is good, but there's no reason he's worse off than somebody making 60-80K less than him, AT ALL. if he believes that, I'll keep saying it, TAKE A PAY CUT.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Student loans is a luxury he chose, not a government theft. He doesn't want to claim his donations for deduction but then complains he "can't afford" a new laptop, LMAO.


State licensure laws ensure that degrees at expensive institutions are requirements for many to work.  Is that theft?  Not necessarily.  Is that "a luxury"?  No $#@!ing way.

----------


## onlyrp

> I agree, but the issue is somewhat complex.  We're stuck in a market where people are forced to pay extraordinary fees for college education.  It's a classic "prisoner's dilemma" economics issue.  The government needs to get rid of student loan guarantees completely.  All they do is perpetuate a costly, inefficient, and archaic education system.  One person can't buck the system by himself, though.


I disagree it's a prisoner's dilemma issue, but that's a minor point. I believe every person KNEW he was taking on the loan when he did, whether he is deluded to think he can pay it back, or whether he thinks somebody will bail him out, are the clear choices he made and must pay for.

Our education system isn't archaic, it's just wasteful. We have more options as far as majors and more expensive facilities than ever. This doesn't necessarily mean quality of education, but it's not fair to say it's archaic. Just monetarily wasteful in wrong places.

----------


## onlyrp

> State licensure laws ensure that degrees at expensive institutions are requirements for many to work.  Is that theft?  Not necessarily.  Is that "a luxury"?  No $#@!ing way.


What industries are you talking about?

It's a luxury compared to what his $20,000 relatives have, had, and had a chance to have.

----------


## furface

> it's not fair to say it's archaic.


Sitting in a lecture hall listening to some stinky old prof with no real world experience lecture on about irrelevant stuff is archaic.  It's a throwback to Roman times when you had "grammar schools" that taught Roman grammar and then "public schools" that indoctrinated the few select plebs into the Roman administrative system.

You'll learn more browsing RPF for a day or two than you will in a semester's worth of university government classes.  The same can be said of things like engineering and science.  The internet has changed everything and the education system hasn't caught up.  It should cost 1/100 what it currently costs, but administrators, lecturers, profs, and bureaucrat's jobs are on the line, so it doesn't change.

----------


## onlyrp

> Sitting in a lecture hall listening to some stinky old prof with no real world experience lecture on about irrelevant stuff is archaic.  It's a throwback to Roman times when you had "grammar schools" that taught Roman grammar and then "public schools" that indoctrinated the few select plebs into the Roman administrative system.
> 
> You'll learn more browsing RPF for a day or two than you will in a semester's worth of university government classes.  The same can be said of things like engineering and science.  The internet has changed everything and the education system hasn't caught up.  It should cost 1/100 what it currently costs, but administrators, lecturers, profs, and bureaucrat's jobs are on the line, so it doesn't change.


You may be talking about the first 2 years. And I think you're still referring to the extreme. 
For the first 2 years, lots of basic and common subjects, I do believe it's easily replaceable with distance education or self teaching. This is why community colleges were designed, and at lower cost, small classrooms. The next 2 years will get somewhat more advanced, they typically require teachers to have hands on experience and some guidance to career planning. If you're saying, that having students learn 2 years of common subjects is archaic, I can see your point. 

Many for-profit schools DO utilize the internet, but they don't pass the savings back to students. You'd think the fact they don't have travel and staff costs , they'd be overall cheaper than traditional schools, but not by much, not by a stretch.

----------


## furface

> What industries are you talking about?


Industries that require accredited university degrees (depending on state).

Medicine
Nursing
Civil Engineering
Surveying
Architecture
Law
Accounting
Mechanical Engineering

To name a few

----------


## onlyrp

> Industries that require accredited university degrees (depending on state).
> 
> Medicine
> Nursing
> Civil Engineering
> Surveying
> Architecture
> Law
> Accounting
> ...


Yea, in which, medicine, nursing, architechture are high paying jobs.
Civil engineering, surveying, law, accounting, I'm not so sure. But much better paying than $20,000 a year.
High paying jobs which high demand, high skill, otherwise high market value justify the costs of education a lot more (and they don't cost THAT much more than low value degrees such as sociology, English, communications)

These are choices you make. Do you want to be a doctor? Then you have to go to medical school. Do you just want a roof over your head? Then college might not be for you.

----------


## LBennett76

I'm a single mom that makes about 20k a year, little to no child support. I work 2 jobs (one minimum wage and the other 11.25/hr). I don't get food stamps nor do I qualify for the medical card (though my son does, but he only goes to the doc for his yearly checkup and the dentist bi-yearly). I pay for my own high deductible health insurance that covers nothing until I reach that deductible including paying for my own meds. I purchased my first house at the end of 2010. So I have a mortgage and everything else. I drive a '93 vehicle. I seem to be somehow making it...

----------


## Zippyjuan

So if people making less money are better off because those at higher incomes pay more in taxes how many here are willing to give up a promotion or better paying job if they were offered one?  

According to a chart at Wiki- if you are earning $80,000 you are in the highest 25% of all earners- and making nearly twice the median (which they list as $44k- figres based on 2005 census data). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States  so really aren't doing that bad.  Sometimes "wants" can become "needs" as income levels rise. Demand for goods and services is almost unlimited.

----------


## onlyrp

> I'm a single mom that makes about 20k a year, little to no child support. I work 2 jobs (one minimum wage and the other 11.25/hr). I don't get food stamps nor do I qualify for the medical card (though my son does, but he only goes to the doc for his yearly checkup and the dentist bi-yearly). I pay for my own high deductible health insurance that covers nothing until I reach that deductible including paying for my own meds. I purchased my first house at the end of 2010. So I have a mortgage and everything else. I drive a '93 vehicle. I seem to be somehow making it...


do you get to eat out like this guy wishes? Do you have a new macbook? do you give to charity 10% of your income?

----------


## onlyrp

> So if people making less money are better off because those at higher incomes pay more in taxes how many here are willing to give up a promotion or better paying job if they were offered one?  
> 
> According to a chart at Wiki- if you are earning $80,000 you are in the highest 25% of all earners- and making nearly twice the median (which they list as $44k- figres based on 2005 census data). 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States  so really aren't doing that bad.  Sometimes "wants" can become "needs" as income levels rise. Demand for goods and services is almost unlimited.


according to that chart, the top 2% need only make $250,000?

----------


## LBennett76

I eat out once or twice a week. My laptop is like 4 years old but it's just fine. I give a few dollars to my church, salvation army people at Christmas, and I donate to local causes when they come by. Heck I gave a couple boys $10 to shovel and salt my sidewalk a few weeks ago. If I was making 85-100k a year, I would be rolling in the dough. But I live in a very inexpensive place. If I lived in a city I'd be screwed except that I'd probably be paid more for what I do. But I choose not to live in a city but live a nice, peaceful, easy lifestyle instead. I have a $5 tracfone and am not the type to rush out and spend gobs on the latest tech gadgets. 
People just need to learn to simplify their lives and money troubles begin to ease. That student loan thing though'll get ya. Thankfully I paid mine off years ago. They must have quite a bit if it's taking 20% of their income. Over $1k a month? That's harsh.

----------


## Noclone

Once again, I believe he/she and his/her gf/bf/husband/wife are simply horrible mis-managers of their finances. They claim to make 85-100k annually. Let's cut that in half to take care of taxes, charity, and their student loan debt (say 1k/month). Where is that other 43-50k a year going? By your admission, you are living a "hermit's" lifestyle. IT DOESN'T ADD UP! I have a wife and two children and we are living JUST FINE on less than half your take home. STOP CRYING! All I hear is: "Boo Hoo! I have all this money and don't know how to manage it..." I'm moving on.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Nothing wrong with him tithing, but there is something wrong with him for not taking the deduction.  I think that's what most people are saying.  If he's not going to take the deduction, he shouldn't be giving so much to the church.
> 
> And yes, we all want taxes to go down and be eliminated, but that isn't the reality right now.


Yes, I agree he should take the deductions. All I meant was that it is sad that taxes are so high that the advice given is to cut charity. In Dr. Paul's more voluntary society, people will pay less tax and hopefully give more to charity. 

I see many uninformed but kind people resisting government spending cuts because they claim that 'people don't currently give enough to charity' to pick up the burden, yet it is the high taxes that are discouraging the charitable donations. So if we can't cut tax until we 'prove' that charitable donations are already high enough to cover what is now paid for by tax, then we'll never get there. We need to keep explaining the high cost and poor quality of government-monopoly charity.

----------


## tttar

> Marginal rate of course not the same as the average rate- what is paid on all income. That (the marginal) rate is the tax rate applied to the last dollar earned.  It does not include any tax deductions or exmptions which will lower the average rate.


I'm not sure you read my post before you responded.

----------


## Noclone

> So if people making less money are better off because those at higher incomes pay more in taxes how many here are willing to give up a promotion or better paying job if they were offered one?  
> 
> According to a chart at Wiki- if you are earning $80,000 you are in the highest 25% of all earners- and making nearly twice the median (which they list as $44k- figres based on 2005 census data). 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States  so really aren't doing that bad.  Sometimes "wants" can become "needs" as income levels rise. Demand for goods and services is almost unlimited.


I would LOVE to pay more taxes if that means more take home for my family and I.

----------


## tttar

Like the other guy said, people are nitpicking at the details and not giving enough attention to the larger issue raised. Same with the Emmerich article picked apart by TNR.

They were talking off the tops of their heads, but what they said is still largely true, or we wouldn't be in this forum.

I'd love to see a real comparison between the two situations. Exactly how much better off is someone who makes $80,000, versus someone who makes $20,000, or $0?

It's definitely not by $60,000 or $80,000, correct? So how much more is it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> exactly, organic food and vegetarian diet are liberal environmentalist scams .


No, they're not.  Whoever told you that was scamming you.  Many people do it for health reasons, something those liberal hippies who care about the environment wouldn't know two $#@!s about.

----------


## tttppp

> I understand living in Los Angeles and Connecticut may be higher than many other States in the country (such as Kentucky). I don't doubt your brother actually gets money from his parents, so I'd love to hear more details.
> 
> From you, how much do you make, and how much do you save a year (now)?
> What are your brother's expenses, and how much assistance does he get from your parents? (I mentioned earlier in the other thread, your brother's income may qualify him for cheap rent apartments, about $600 a month, I know people who live there, they're small, but that's how you "live within your means")
> How exactly does this guy's relatives get "better off" by whatever handouts they qualify for?


I don't know how much money my brother gets from my parents or how much his expenses are.  He makes different amounts every month. Sometimes he need money, sometimes he doesn't. It depends on the month.

I'm unemployed right now, so I have to live with my parents. I don't have the financial from when I was working.

----------


## Noclone

> No, they're not.  Whoever told you that was scamming you.  Many people do it for health reasons, something those liberal hippies who care about the environment wouldn't know two $#@!s about.


To me, the only "organic" food is that which is picked out of my farm garden... Anything else, I don't trust.

----------


## Romulus

To the OP, you need to change a few things.

1. stretch out that student loan longer. Interest is cheap and tax deductible.

2. buy a modest house under $200k. You can deduct interest there as well and instead of throwing away your money in RENT, you can pay into ownership and build equity. 

3. stop giving so much to your church and donate your time instead. Put that 10% toward your new mortgage and student loans.

4. just stop with the whole foods. Shop at Aldi or somewhere similar.. you can still eat clean without going overboard.

5. talk to a tax professional and financial planner.

6. stop worrying about how everyone else is living.

----------


## furface

What this thread tells me.  "Welcome to Germany."  We're definitely heading in that direction.  Fairly low cost of living.  Fairly wide safety net.  Complaints that there aren't many incentives and may disincentives to work hard and move out of the middle/subsidy class.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You guys keep leaving out state income tax, which is 6% in my state.  We're actually looking into moving to a state with no income tax.  
> 
> To the guy who suggested getting a house for a mortgage deduction, we hate debt, and want nothing more than student loans.  When those are paid off, we are not getting into debt again.  Besides, the 1k a month we pay for rent is far cheaper than the mortgages on the 400k+ houses in this part of town.  To find cheaper rent or houses requires us to move so far away from work that we can't walk and bike to work anymore.  We'd end up paying more in gas, car expenses and stress from traffic. 
> 
> I am intelligent enough to know about itemized deductions.  If we went this route it would have saved us a thousand dollars or so.  Big deal.  Did not want to itemize for $1k in savings because most IRS audits are geared to those who itemize.  In short, I do not want to risk the headaches for $1k in savings.  If it were significantly more than that, then of course I'd itemize.  
> 
> The student loans are well over six figures.  In the line of work one of us is in, most students graduate with over 150k in loans, lots of them over 200k or 300k.  We personally know coworkers who owe more than 300k.  You would be shocked at what kind of debt people are graduating with these days.  If you go to a public university, you are fine.  However, if you go to a private university as an undergrad, or a choose to go to any graduate school to pursue higher level education, chances are that you are graduating with tons of debt.  I made a poll last year here on RPF, asking how much debt people had.  Even people on this forum had over 300k in debt.
> 
> [edit] to the person who brought up Obama's loan repayment program that is based on income, it is a scam.  Those programs do limit the monthly payment, but they are stretched out over 25 years.  If we went this route and had remaining debt forgiven at 25 years, we still would have paid almost as much as if we just hurried up and paid the loans off in 10 years or less.  Besides, we want to pay back the full amount since the government stole the money from other tax payers; and we want to pay it back ASAP because we don't want to be in debt for 25 years.


Isn't rent like debt?  It's the same principle.  You can't pay the full value up front, so you pay indefinitely as long as you are living there.  It's pretty much the same as if you had a large amount of debt and were trying to pay it off year by year.  The payments essentially don't end unless you can eventually own the place where you live.  If you don't own it, you are in debt to someone else.  Rent is no better than a mortgage.  Also, who told you that you need a $400k home?  Try $200k, or even $100k (about the value of our house on a $35k/year income; we bought it for 85k, but have since renovated it to be worth about 100k, even in this market).  Our mortgage is only $300/month and we are way ahead of schedule because we don't like debt either.  My point is that a mortgage and rent are pretty much the same thing at your income level.  You just need to get a modest house and pay it off as quickly as you can so that you don't have to worry about that anymore.  




> The student loans are well over six figures.


Well, there's your problem.  You pay interest on those, too, so it requires you to pay more than what you actually owe so it's very demanding and you have to pay more than minimum payments to actually get it paid off.  You will have to be more specific about these six figure loans and how much you pay in interest, what your schedule is and how quickly you are paying it off because that makes a huge difference.

----------


## onlyrp

> Like the other guy said, you're nitpicking at the details and not giving enough attention to the larger issue raised. Same with the Emmerich article picked apart by TNR.
> 
> They were talking off the tops of their heads, but what they said is still largely true, or we wouldn't be in this forum.
> 
> I'd love to see a real comparison between the two situations. Exactly how much better off is someone who makes $80,000, versus someone who makes $20,000, or $0?
> 
> It's definitely not by $60,000 or $80,000, correct? So how much more is it?


It is for me, I'm on fixed expenses (I know it sounds insane). I used to make $20,000 a year. When I made more, at $40,000, I saved almost all the difference because I did increase my spending. 
I am very lucky that I have no debts, and a very responsible family upbringing, my parents still worked til they were both 60. When their house was paid off, they didn't start going on vacations or eating more expensive food. They spending was no different than if they made $30,000 a year (but less because no mortgage to pay). We never qualified for any handouts, we never gave to charity, we donate used items when we can, but almost never in money. In fact, when I lived at home, and made $20,000, I paid all the utility bills for my parents, not because they needed help, but just because I can, so my parents practically paid zero of their income after taxes. 

Maybe the real difference here is, we shared, we made the choices. I am not married, and never want to. I don't want kids either. I'm currently renting because I can and want to, but I know it's not a necessity, I can take being made fun of by people that I live at home. I prefer that over being made fun of for not having money.

----------


## onlyrp

> Isn't rent like debt?  It's the same principle.  You can't pay the full value up front, so you pay indefinitely as long as you are living there.


So to live is to be in debt unless you're homeless?

----------


## onlyrp

> To the OP, you need to change a few things.
> 
> 1. stretch out that student loan longer. Interest is cheap and tax deductible.
> 
> 2. buy a modest house under $200k. You can deduct interest there as well and instead of throwing away your money in RENT, you can pay into ownership and build equity. 
> 
> 3. stop giving so much to your church and donate your time instead. Put that 10% toward your new mortgage and student loans.
> 
> 4. just stop with the whole foods. Shop at Aldi or somewhere similar.. you can still eat clean without going overboard.
> ...


I disagree with prolonging debt and adding a debt, but that's everybody's own choice.

----------


## onlyrp

> I don't know how much money my brother gets from my parents or how much his expenses are.  He makes different amounts every month. Sometimes he need money, sometimes he doesn't. It depends on the month.
> 
> I'm unemployed right now, so I have to live with my parents. I don't have the financial from when I was working.


Ok, that's fine. 

Now, since you live at home. What are your expenses? if any? Are you living within or below "basics"? If below, what are you lacking?

----------


## onlyrp

> I would LOVE to pay more taxes if that means more take home for my family and I.


you usually do. You are never taxed beyond the difference you make. Making more always means net more after taxes.

----------


## furface

> Making more always means net more after taxes.


You clearly have a very naive view of the complexities and nuances of the federal income tax code.

----------


## tttppp

> Ok, that's fine. 
> 
> Now, since you live at home. What are your expenses? if any? Are you living within or below "basics"? If below, what are you lacking?


I pay for food and gas. Thats it. We live slightly above the basics. My parents pay for tv, internet, phone, and cell phone...and take a vacation every now and then. Other than that, its just the basics.

I'm not lacking any basics, but if I lived on my own I'd be screwed.

----------


## onlyrp

> I pay for food and gas. Thats it. We live slightly above the basics. My parents pay for tv, internet, phone, and cell phone...and take a vacation every now and then. Other than that, its just the basics.
> 
> I'm not lacking any basics, but if I lived on my own I'd be screwed.


Is it fair to say, your expenses are less than $200 a month, and you're living free rent?

Wait, what's gas? Why do you travel if you are not working?

----------


## onlyrp

> You clearly have a very naive view of the complexities and nuances of the federal income tax code.


Actually I'm not. 

You might be talking about EITC and food stamps or other handouts like medical care, but that's not the same as being taxed less. Show me where I am wrong.

----------


## tttppp

> Is it fair to say, your expenses are less than $200 a month, and you're living free rent?
> 
> Wait, what's gas? Why do you travel if you are not working?


I do go to the store and leave the house occasionally.

200 a month would be a good estimate.

----------


## onlyrp

> I do go to the store and leave the house occasionally.
> 
> 200 a month would be a good estimate.


And if you lived on your own, the actual difference in cost is rent + utilities?

----------


## furface

> Actually I'm not.
> 
> You might be talking about EITC and food stamps or other handouts like medical care, but that's not the same as being taxed less. Show me where I am wrong.


Many situations, but here's one that you can probably understand.  You make nothing for 9 years and 200k in year 10.  You'll net less than making 19k for 10 years, I guarantee it.

----------


## onlyrp

> Many situations, but here's one that you can probably understand.  You make nothing for 9 years and 200k in year 10.  You'll net less than making 19k for 10 years, I guarantee it.


Would it be the same if you made $200K year one and nothing for the next 9 years?

Let me check.

----------


## furface

> Would it be the same if you made $200K year one and nothing for the next 9 years?
> 
> Let me check.


Same thing nominally, and you'll be taxed at an unfairly high income bracket.  Just one of many outrages in the US tax code.  People who think the US tax code is fair haven't looked close enough.

----------


## NCGOPer_for_Paul

> So to live is to be in debt unless you're homeless?


Pretty much.

Unless you inherit a paid off house, can actually find open space and build your own dwelling (but that involves other expenses), or fully pay of a mortgage, yes.  And, even in all three cases, you're still paying property tax.

I fully realize that not everyone can afford to buy a house, and renting is the only choice, but if you are in a position to "own" a house, you should (and I'm not avocating for 0% down with a 500 credit score).  I'm saying if you have the 20% and your score is good, you should be paying a mortgage as opposed to rent.  You build equity, get the tax advantages, and, for the most part, it is yours.

----------


## onlyrp

You are comparing a person who makes $200,000 once, and nothing for 9 more years. 
Versus a person who takes $190,000 in 10 different years.
If I granted your premises as true, the "solution" is that you can voluntarily defer being paid.
Another problem with your comparison is, you are comparing a person who makes $19,000 a year vs a person who makes $200,000 a year.
The year both people made their money, the person with $200,000 TOOK HOME MORE, WAY MORE, than the person who makes only $19,000.

----------


## onlyrp

> Same thing nominally, and you'll be taxed at an unfairly high income bracket.  Just one of many outrages in the US tax code.  People who think the US tax code is fair haven't looked close enough.


but you take home more. so your point about "i'll gladly pay more if I can take home more" is bunk.

yes, it's true that the more you make, the more you're taxed, proportionally overall. But never more than the difference you made. That means, the person who makes $200,000 will never be taxed 181,000 to put him in a worse position than if he just made 19,000.

----------


## furface

> The year both people made their money, the person with $200,000 TOOK HOME MORE, WAY MORE, than the person who makes only $19,000.


So what.  Only people who are ignorant of economics, business practices, and most importantly entrepreneurship think that arbitrary time periods mean anything.  How much money did you make yesterday?  Should we determine income tax brackets on a daily basis?  So if you make $500 one day you're considered "rich" even though you may make nothing for the next few months?  

You're out of your league in this discussion.  Goodbye.

----------


## tttar

I don't think the OP even cares about most of the points made in the discussion, because they probably don't address his main point, which is that he shouldn't have to work so much harder to be not that much better off.

But we need numbers to show the true situation. Emmerich made a start here, but the subject needs some more attention:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ent...ome-family-mak

----------


## onlyrp

> *So what.*


that explains it. You contradicted yourself and then respond with "so what". How exactly do you "gladly pay more taxes if you can take home more"? You propose the rich pay a lower tax rate? Or flat rate for all incomes?

A day and a year are day and night difference, a year and 10 years is also day and night. So you might as well say second vs lifetime if you really wanna make your point. 

To place context of your example of making $500 a day and nothing after, it is too rare to be practical. Otherwise I'd love to know why he can't do it again. A person making nothing for 9 years and then $200,000 is as good as winning lottery. Otherwise, we ask again, why can't he make near the same next year?

----------


## Noclone

> I don't think the OP even cares about most of the points made in the discussion, because they probably don't address his main point, which is that he shouldn't have to work so much harder to be not that much better off.
> 
> But we need numbers to show the true situation. Emmerich made a start here, but the subject needs some more attention:
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ent...ome-family-mak


No, he simply wanted to complain that someone making 20k a year has more to show than his 85-100k a year. I shall not be sympathetic on financial mismanagement. I have been financially immature in the past. Lessons have been learned. Now, like I said in one of my earlier posts, give me 60k a year and watch me mop up the Jones's...

----------


## onlyrp

> I don't think the OP even cares about most of the points made in the discussion, because they probably don't address his main point, which is that he shouldn't have to work so much harder to be not that much better off.
> 
> But we need numbers to show the true situation. Emmerich made a start here, but the subject needs some more attention:
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ent...ome-family-mak


I already analyzed it. Emmerich is full of crap.

_IF we assumed a minimum wage family made only $15,000 a year, paid zero taxes, took EITC, spend ZERO on housing, food, and sold all their food stamps for CASH. The MAX they can save in cash a year is $26,000. This is $15000 wages, $5000 EITC and $6000 food stamps._ (and this is incredibly unrealistic, near impossible, but I'm giving it the best generous estimate)

----------


## onlyrp

> No, he simply wanted to complain that someone making 20k a year has more to show than his 85-100k a year. I shall not be sympathetic on financial mismanagement. I have been financially immature in the past. Lessons have been learned. Now, like I said in one of my earlier posts, give me 60k a year and watch me mop up the Jones's...


they don't have more to show, he has an expensive diploma and a church donation worth more than my car. All they have to show is "eating out".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I believe God is pretty self-sufficient. Don`t think he needs money. I also don `t believe he needs money to spread his message since he`s all powerful and all mighty. 
> 
> Regarding charity, I believe you can really make a difference once you`re self-sufficient yourself. You`re not self-sufficient if you still have credit and loans to pay.


I like your point here.  God is all-powerful and money doesn't really serve any heavenly purpose.  The interesting thing is that the Catholic church, which requires tithing, is much like the government in that it fools many people into believing the establishment to which they are donating actually needs the money when it is way too big to begin with.  If you look at the history of how the Catholic church was tied to the state in the past, it makes a lot of sense.  The Catholic church has fostered a _dependence_ of its constituents on the church so that they can thrive from other people's money.

----------


## tttar

> I already analyzed it. Emmerich is full of crap.
> 
> _IF we assumed a minimum wage family made only $15,000 a year, paid zero taxes, took EITC, spend ZERO on housing, food, and sold all their food stamps for CASH. The MAX they can save in cash a year is $26,000. This is $15000 wages, $5000 EITC and $6000 food stamps._ (and this is incredibly unrealistic, near impossible, but I'm giving it the best generous estimate)


Of course the numbers aren't accurate. But there's a reality that's somewhere in between, or we wouldn't be talking about a bloated welfare state that rewards people for not working, not marrying, and having children. The more important issue is not whether these guys have all their details right, but rather just how bad is the picture they tried to describe?

In other words, how could they have best described it?

----------


## onlyrp

> So what.  Only people who are ignorant of economics, business practices, and most importantly entrepreneurship think that arbitrary time periods mean anything.  How much money did you make yesterday?  Should we determine income tax brackets on a daily basis?  So if you make $500 one day you're considered "rich" even though you may make nothing for the next few months?  
> 
> You're out of your league in this discussion.  Goodbye.


Tax rates were not designed for people who make $200,000 or $200,000,000 one year, and nothing afterwards. They're designed for normal people who make income regularly year by year. It's also not meant to screw people over for making $500 a day or find a diamond ring in the trash can. So the fact you bring up bizarre example to make your point doesn't help you.

----------


## onlyrp

> Of course the numbers aren't accurate. But there's a reality that's somewhere in between, or we wouldn't be talking about a bloated welfare state that rewards people for not working, not marrying, and having children. *The more important issue is not whether these guys have all their details right, but rather just how bad is the picture they tried to describe?
> 
> In other words, how could they have best described it?*


They don't have details right. They can't describe something for what it is not. 
I grant you there are certain incentives for not being married, but you are never paid to have children. That's to say, you don't "gain" anything in net money by having children, assuming it your labor and time for caring for your child is free. Welfare state only awards people for not working if they are extremely frugal and are willing to live on minimal housing and minimal food. If you want the lifestyle of welfare recipients, check out where they live. You can move in their neighborhood and your expenses will be about $1000 a month, that means if you make just barely $1000 a month, you might be taxed below it. But if you make anywhere above $2000 a month, you can have the welfare state lifestyle and a lot more cash for entertainment.

The picture isn't bad at all, because the person who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never met a person on welfare, or making minimum wage. Or else he'd NEVER think they are better off by any means than a person making $60,000. I keep repeating this line, but if you are better off making a lower wage, voluntarily ask for a cut. Your boss saves money, you make money, everybody wins (except the taxpayer, but that's not your problem).

If a person making $60,000 or $100,000 is worse off than one making less than $20,000, he's made different and probably poor choices financially.

----------


## tttppp

> And if you lived on your own, the actual difference in cost is rent + utilities?


Food would cost more because I would have to get all my food myself. Gas would cost more, and there would be car expenses.

----------


## tttar

> They don't have details right. They can't describe something for what it is not. 
> I grant you there are certain incentives for not being married, but you are never paid to have children. That's to say, you don't "gain" anything in net money by having children, assuming it your labor and time for caring for your child is free. Welfare state only awards people for not working if they are extremely frugal and are willing to live on minimal housing and minimal food. If you want the lifestyle of welfare recipients, check out where they live. You can move in their neighborhood and your expenses will be about $1000 a month, that means if you make just barely $1000 a month, you might be taxed below it. But if you make anywhere above $2000 a month, you can have the welfare state lifestyle and a lot more cash for entertainment.
> 
> The picture isn't bad at all, because the person who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about. He's never met a person on welfare, or making minimum wage. Or else he'd NEVER think they are better off by any means than a person making $60,000. I keep repeating this line, but if you are better off making a lower wage, voluntarily ask for a cut. Your boss saves money, you make money, everybody wins (except the taxpayer, but that's not your problem).
> 
> If a person making $60,000 or $100,000 is worse off than one making less than $20,000, he's made different and probably poor choices financially.


Then there's the issue of not having to spend 60% of your waking hours working, going to work, thinking about work, etc. But we need a lot more detail on this. Everyone I've known who works around homeless people doesn't tell me that they're desperately trying to acquire job skills. They seem pretty comfortable that way. 

I wouldn't want the lifestyle either, but if I woke up with amnesia and faced having to exert myself all over again to get to where I am, I'm not sure if I'd see much point to it, but in a healthy society there had better be this incentive!

----------


## onlyrp

> Then there's the issue of not having to spend 60% of your waking hours working, going to work, thinking about work, etc. But we need a lot more detail on this. Everyone I've known who works around homeless people doesn't tell me that they're desperately trying to acquire job skills. They seem pretty comfortable that way. 
> 
> I wouldn't want the lifestyle either, but if I woke up with amnesia and faced having to exert myself all over again to get to where I am, I'm not sure if I'd see much point to it, but in a healthy society there had better be this incentive!


they probably are comfortable that way, or learned to not hate it. If you don't want their lifestyle, THAT is your incentive, because NOT having work and money WILL give you their lifestyle, or worse. Nobody owes you incentives, you make your own choices. I don't think "in a nice healthy society", this is life, there are different countries, but there are not different times you can travel to, so learn to deal with it.

----------


## tttar

> they probably are comfortable that way, or learned to not hate it. If you don't want their lifestyle, THAT is your incentive, because NOT having work and money WILL give you their lifestyle, or worse. Nobody owes you incentives, you make your own choices. I don't think "in a nice healthy society", this is life, there are different countries, but there are not different times you can travel to, so learn to deal with it.


The point is that other people's incentives are also our problem, in a society that holds us financially liable for them.

----------


## LBennett76

I work 45 hours a week to make $20k. I don't even live in the ghetto. I live on a nice quiet street in a nice little house I bought from an 80 year old woman. Deals are out there if you look for them. I had a decent enough credit score that I brought up after digging myself out of debt. Where I live 400k houses are where the doctors and lawyers live. 
I just wonder what kind of degrees you get where you owe 6 figures in loans for them, but the jobs you got from those degrees only net you 85-100k combined? That seems insane.

----------


## tttppp

> I work 45 hours a week to make $20k. I don't even live in the ghetto. I live on a nice quiet street in a nice little house I bought from an 80 year old woman. Deals are out there if you look for them. I had a decent enough credit score that I brought up after digging myself out of debt. Where I live 400k houses are where the doctors and lawyers live. 
> I just wonder what kind of degrees you get where you owe 6 figures in loans for them, but the jobs you got from those degrees only net you 85-100k combined? That seems insane.


Most degrees are not really necessary. The professions set these bs educational requirements just for the purpose of discouraging people from entering the profession.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Getting a degree shows 1) that you can learn things and are probably smart and 2) you probably have knowledge about that field that a person without a degree does not have.  If you were an employer- which would you be more likely to hire- the person with a degree or the one without? A degree does not guarantee any job but it does increase the opportunities to find a decent job.  Even manufacturing is less and less for the uneducated to step into- modern factories use computer assisted equipment you need to know how to run.  But Burger King and McDonalds has pictures on the buttons so it is harder to hit the wrong one. You can do those jobs without a degree.

----------


## Gaddafi Duck

> This country sucks.  I get so frustrated at times that I find myself wishing for a collapse in hopes that the welfare freebies go away.  I just did my taxes, and had conversations--in one case, a heated argument--with family who did taxes too.  Here is modern Amerika for you.
> 
> My wife and I are pulling in 85k - 100k a year.  Because we "make so much," we do not qualify for government handouts.  Between federal, state and local taxes, 30%+ of our income goes to government right off the bat.  Then over 20% goes to student loans.  We live in a nice two-bedroom apartment and can afford to eat healthy food (Whole Foods, organics, etc).  But we are not rich--we have not been on vacation in almost four years; my wife has wanted/needed a new Macbook for a year but we can't afford one; we buy most of our clothes from the thrift store; we have only been out to eat two times since September; we never pay money for entertainment such as concerts, football games, movie theaters, etc.  
> 
> Two different sets of relatives of mine make around 20k a year.  In both families the wife does not work, only the husband.  One of them makes like $10 an hour at a big-box store, the other probably makes $12ish at a hospital.  One family is expecting a third child, the other the second.  This means that both families get enough tax credits so that they get way more money than they pay in--one is getting almost $10k "back" this April.  Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills, these guys get Medicaid; and for all I know are on food stamps and who knows what else.  Both families seem to eat out as much as they want, pay for entertainment, and in the last 6 months have gone on vacation.  
> 
> In short, because our government is playing Robbin Hood, we have relatives and families in my church who make a fraction of what we make, but live better lifestyles than we do.


Wow, you make ~$85,000-$100,000 pretax and you're struggling?? 20% goes to student loans? Whose fault is that?

I've put together my total expenditures for EVERYTHING, food, gas, rent, new clothes, Christmas gifts, etc. For 2011, I spent less than $24,000 in total expenditures with my girlfriend and me COMBINED. I live in a city of 250,000 people. I just bought a 46 inch LED TV a few months ago. How in the HELL are you not affording to live with $60,000 after taxes?? 

Life is pretty simple, people. I know inflation is out there, and it sucks, but if you HAVE to go to thrift stores (nothing wrong with them, but if you are being forced out of necessity to go there) then you're seriously doing something wrong with your money management. Absolutely no excuse.

Even with ~$10,000 in tax credits they get back, they're still making less than you and they have kids, and they're making it. How the $#@! does that work? It's not the "system" because after you've gone through the "system", you still have more money than them. 

It's probably because you're drinking $6 organic milk. I could easily make $40,000 and have a very nice lifestyle. After taxes and expenditures, I'd have about $10,000 per year left over at that income level. I wouldn't even need a working spouse.

Sorry, but families who struggle with two working spouses when they make nearly six-figures, I have no sympathy for. Like I said, I could support myself and my girlfriend at $30,000/year after taxes and have plenty of money (~$6,000) to go on vacation to anywhere in the world at least once a year. I don't make $30,000, but I know I could easily make it just looking at my expenditures and a $30,000 after tax income. 

Remember, I spend $24k a year and I'm buying steaks, filling up a 20 mpg car, purchasing the newest electronics, and living in some of the more expensive apartments in my city. $85,000 minimum pretax?? I could retire in 15 years making that much. That'd be around $30,000-$35,000 in excess cash by my living standards...take that times 15 years and it's half a million dollars. Take that times capital appreciation and dividend income, and I wouldn't have to work.

Again, how can you possibly be struggling with that kind of income?

----------


## tttar

The guy's not looking for "sympathy." He resents studying, borrowing, and working his butt off so that others can loaf. I'm surprised we're so divided here. I don't think the welfare state has much to fear, with people bickering about so many peripheral issues.

----------


## silverhandorder

I agree with OP. Bad finances aside there is no reason why he should be paying 30k a year in taxes so that others can have foodstamps and Medicare.

----------


## Gaddafi Duck

> The guy's not looking for "sympathy." He resents studying, borrowing, and working his butt off so that others can loaf. I'm surprised we're so divided here. I don't think the welfare state has much to fear, with people bickering about so many peripheral issues.


Look, the guy makes $60,000 per year AFTER taxes, and he can't afford to buy a nice $10 dollar T-shirt on clearance somewhere? REALLY?

Again, life ISN'T that hard. I see it all the time, but I'm always left wondering...how can people who have high income households ($85-100k per year is pretty damn high) struggle so much when they have more disposable income than the $20k/year folk EVEN WITH tax credits/hikes included? 

I grew up with two parents that were high school teachers. We did MORE than fine. Christmases were ALWAYS incredible. My parents could not have been making more than $50,000/year, but they were supporting four kids plus themselves. Even with the tax breaks, trust me, $3,700 in a tax credit for a kid is hardly enough to offset the price of the kid. 

Again, the guy makes $60,000 AFTER taxes and says he can't afford to shop anywhere but a thrift store, has 20% of his income going to student loans, and eats organic food?? Does that not seem like one of the most $#@!ed up spending habits? Huge amount of debt mixed with a dash of thriftiness that's completely gobbled up by BS "value-added" food. That's the most random assortment of buying I've heard of. People who can afford organic food but are forced to shop at Goodwill and are drowning in debt don't have the system to blame---they're making far beyond what someone who ACTUALLY struggles does.

The guy is pretty much eating at a restaurant every meal and he wonders why he can't afford to shop at Kohl's. Go $#@!in' figure. That's what happens when you use leverage and debt. I bet he wasn't struggling in college when he was borrowing all that money to piss around his refund check each semester.

----------


## tttar

> Look, the guy makes $60,000 per year AFTER taxes, and he can't afford to buy a nice $10 dollar T-shirt on clearance somewhere? REALLY?
> 
> Again, life ISN'T that hard. I see it all the time, but I'm always left wondering...how can people who have high income households ($85-100k per year is pretty damn high) struggle so much when they have more disposable income than the $20k/year folk EVEN WITH tax credits/hikes included? 
> 
> I grew up with two parents that were high school teachers. We did MORE than fine. Christmases were ALWAYS incredible. My parents could not have been making more than $50,000/year, but they were supporting four kids plus themselves. Even with the tax breaks, trust me, $3,700 in a tax credit for a kid is hardly enough to offset the price of the kid. 
> 
> Again, the guy makes $60,000 AFTER taxes and says he can't afford to shop anywhere but a thrift store, has 20% of his income going to student loans, and eats organic food?? Does that not seem like one of the most $#@!ed up spending habits? Huge amount of debt mixed with a dash of thriftiness that's completely gobbled up by BS "value-added" food. That's the most random assortment of buying I've heard of. People who can afford organic food but are forced to shop at Goodwill and are drowning in debt.
> 
> The guy is pretty much eating at a restaurant every meal and he wonders why he can't afford to shop at Kohl's. Go $#@!in' figure. That's what happens when you use leverage and debt. I bet he wasn't struggling in college when he was borrowing all that money to piss around his refund check each semester.


I didn't get it all either (btw, he did say he does *not* eat out) , but that wasn't his main point. I will stand corrected when he comes back and emphasizes that he only came here to cry about himself.  

I'd like to see the welfare goodies and incentives accurately quantified in some way. That's what this should be about.

----------


## Gaddafi Duck

> I didn't get it all either (btw, he did say he does *not* eat out) , but that wasn't his main point. I will stand corrected when he comes back and emphasizes that he only came here to cry about himself.  
> 
> I'd like to see the welfare goodies and incentives accurately quantified in some way. That's what this should be about.


I said "the guy is *pretty much* eating at a restaurant every meal". He affords the whole foods/organics, which beg a premium. $6/gallon organic milk? Yeah, that's restaurant-price $#@!.

It's much less about the welfare state. The guy makes a $#@! ton more than the average family and he can barely make ends meet. Yes, people with kids DO get tax breaks, but who was the last kid that ate $3,700 in food, entertainment, and clothes each year? That's how much you get a "break" for.

Whether he came here for sympathy or not is irrelevant. The guy makes a lot more money than most people--yet he's struggling. Again, it's due to incompetence. I proved I could live off of $30,000 per year supporting my girlfriend and I and still take a vacation to Europe once a year. The fact he's making $60k after taxes and can't buy his wife a $1000 laptop--the debate should stop right there. He makes plenty and can't manage his money. That's his problem, not the $#@!in' welfare state. Government is a problem for many things, but not for your inability to think.

Inflation/taxes are a problem, but $60,000 after taxes in America, or anywhere, in the world in 2012 is a pretty damn nice income even in the world of $3.60 gasoline and $1.50 soda pop and $20 t-shirts.

----------


## onlyrp

> I agree with OP. Bad finances aside there is no reason why he should be paying 30k a year in taxes so that others can have foodstamps and Medicare.


a lot is his own fault, such as not itemizing his deductions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sitting in a lecture hall listening to some stinky old prof with no real world experience lecture on about irrelevant stuff is archaic.  It's a throwback to Roman times when you had "grammar schools" that taught Roman grammar and then "public schools" that indoctrinated the few select plebs into the Roman administrative system.
> 
> You'll learn more browsing RPF for a day or two than you will in a semester's worth of university government classes.  The same can be said of things like engineering and science.  The internet has changed everything and the education system hasn't caught up.  It should cost 1/100 what it currently costs, but administrators, lecturers, profs, and bureaucrat's jobs are on the line, so it doesn't change.


I have to disagree.  Maybe it's that bad in public schools.  I wouldn't know, but I have to say the quality of education in the private college I went to was very good.  It was costly, but luckily I was recruited as an athlete and got pretty much a free ride.  In fact, in the last year I was there, they were paying ME.  

I don't think it's fair to say it's archaic either, though.  I learned a lot.  I also don't get why you think the prof is "stinky" or why they wouldn't have any real world experience?  I had many profs who would contradict both of those claims.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I agree with OP. Bad finances aside there is no reason why he should be paying 30k a year in taxes so that others can have foodstamps and Medicare.


The OP has basically been conscripted into involuntary servitude to nameless/faceless others from January through the middle of April. It's starting to make sense to me now why the IRS has a mid-April filing deadline.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To me, the only "organic" food is that which is picked out of my farm garden... Anything else, I don't trust.


That's a good strategy... but what about the chemtrails??

I keed, I keed.

----------


## onlyrp

> I have to disagree.  Maybe it's that bad in public schools.  I wouldn't know, but I have to say the quality of education in the private college I went to was very good.  It was costly, but luckily I was recruited as an athlete and got pretty much a free ride.  In fact, in the last year I was there, they were paying ME.  
> 
> I don't think it's fair to say it's archaic either, though.  I learned a lot.  I also don't get why you think the prof is "stinky" or why they wouldn't have any real world experience?  I had many profs who would contradict both of those claims.


exactly. 

Thanks. I agree we can improve, but archaic is not a fair description.

----------


## onlyrp

> The OP has basically been conscripted into involuntary servitude to nameless/faceless others from January through the middle of April. It's starting to make sense to me now why the IRS has a mid-April filing deadline.


why? Why not June or December?

----------


## iGGz

[}{]

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So to live is to be in debt unless you're homeless?


No, stupid.  You have to OWN the place you live in.  I was talking about rent, not something that's bought and paid for.  If you rent something, you will never completely pay it off.

If you pay off your house, then it's yours and you're not in debt anymore.  If you live in someone else's space, then you are indebted to them the value of that space.  If you own the space, then you have no debt.  It's as simple as that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then don't whine about not having enough money.
> 
> Why don't you consolidate your student loans or something?


The thing is, he didn't want to bring up the charity thing, but _he had to_.  If he started this thread and did NOT mention it, then it would have made even less sense than it does now, which is to say, very little sense.

----------


## onlyrp

> No, stupid.  You have to OWN the place you live in.  I was talking about rent, not something that's bought and paid for.  If you rent something, you will never completely pay it off.


yes, but nobody is born with a house. So unless they are inheriting a house, they'll always be paying rent or mortgage, typically 10 years minimum (and that's a VERY conservative estimate, 25 years is realistic)

----------


## onlyrp

> The thing is, he didn't want to bring up the charity thing, but _he had to_.  If he started this thread and did NOT mention it, then it would have made even less sense than it does now, which is to say, very little sense.


exactly, he still owes us some more numbers if he wants the thread to keep going, but looks like the people here are having their fun time without him

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## onlyrp

> Yeah. I don't want to dog on the guy, I mean, I agree with the his main point. I just don't agree with the need to donate (especially 10%) when obviously the money is also needed by the person donating it. I'm not exactly the most religious person (at all), but I do help people I see if they need it- something that makes me feel 100x better than donating to some church who is going to use the money on some new furniture or something. I also tip very generously which I consider in a way a form of charity.


Tipping is charity, it's completely voluntary too.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Hrmmm, you are broke because of student loans, and giving to charity and living in an expensive area. 

Anyway, if I make the same as last year I should make about 80K in my new situation. 
Expenses: 115.00 health insurance BlueCross HSA 5000 account means means I pay 5000 out of pocket total for the year the rest for everything is 100% for all but a few things. HSA accounts are tax deductible off your income. So, not much of an expense there really and the money in HSA accounts accumulates every year if you don't use it. 

So, that is monthly.

115.00 Health insurance 
160.00 Gas/Electric
 60.00 Water
100.00 HSA Contribution to account
100.00 internet
100.00 drinks
 40.00 car insurance
  125     Housing taxes
 210 food (I actually spent less than 7today)
 120 Gas (it really isn't that much even)
  60 Clothes Primarily Offseason clearance and ebay, which probably is like 500 a year. So 2 dollars a day. 
   9 Netflix (I think that is what it costs)
 100 Dog Expenses (really isn't that much rounding)

=1299 Dollars a month to live.

I do spend more than that but everything else is not necessary and luxury.

So, my average monthly income for the year should be around 6750.

So, leaving about half left over after taxes and real expenses.

If I had to pay 20% to student loans and 10% to the church, I'd be only left with like a thousand at the end of the month I'm guessing.

So, you are broke because of your student loans, choice of residence, and 10% tithe, not because of the welfare system necessarily. So, you should have crunched these numbers, well in advance. Almost Anyone would have little money left after 
giving 30% off the top then paying a 1000 in rent, then 28% taxes.

Just to clarify I think there is to much welfare but that isn't the primary reason the OP is broke.

----------


## Danke

> Tipping is charity, it's completely voluntary too.


 yep, so is paying into the income tax.

----------


## jclay2

Sorry op, I feel like to many people are getting sidetracked and not focusing on the real issue. The real issue is that a huge portion of the populace is sucking tens of thousands of dollars out of the system without puting anything back in. That is the problem, period. All of the posters here asking you to release your w2 and quicken budget summary are just serving as a distraction. Instead of focusing on the 30-40% cream off the top that the Government steals, people are questioning your 10% tithes to the church.

----------


## onlyrp

> Sorry op, I feel like to many people are getting sidetracked and not focusing on the real issue. The real issue is that a huge portion of the populace is sucking tens of thousands of dollars out of the system without puting anything back in. That is the problem, period. All of the posters here asking you to release your w2 and quicken budget summary are just serving as a distraction. Instead of focusing on the 30-40% cream off the top that the Government steals, people are questioning your 10% tithes to the church.


why should we take his word for it? he already admitted he didn't itemize his deductions, which is why he's taxed to the max when he didn't have to. I am not questioning his tithing, just wondering why he's complaining when he says he "cheerfully" gives.

----------


## onlyrp

> If I had to pay 20% to student loans and 10% to the church, I'd be only left with like a thousand at the end of the month I'm guessing.


and by what standard is that worse than somebody who makes $20,000 a year? He's still not telling us

----------


## Noclone

> That's a good strategy... but what about the chemtrails??
> 
> I keed, I keed.


You mean the chemicals from acid rain? That's a whole other issue.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The OP has basically been conscripted into involuntary servitude to nameless/faceless others from January through the middle of April. It's starting to make sense to me now why the IRS has a mid-April filing deadline.why?
> 			
> 		
> 
>  Why not June or December?


I thought it was obvious - and even obvious that I was being facetious.  If 30% of your earnings go to taxes in a year, it means that you are laboring for the first 30% of each year (just under four months, or right around April 15th) exclusively for whatever and whomever benefits from those taxes.

----------


## seekingliberty

> Sorry op, I feel like to many people are getting sidetracked and not focusing on the real issue. The real issue is that a huge portion of the populace is sucking tens of thousands of dollars out of the system without puting anything back in. That is the problem, period. All of the posters here asking you to release your w2 and quicken budget summary are just serving as a distraction. Instead of focusing on the 30-40% cream off the top that the Government steals, people are questioning your 10% tithes to the church.


I agree! I completely understand your frustration at the system. I do agree though that you should be itemizing and taking as many deductions as possible.

What he chooses to spend his money on should be no one's business. I would think that being on a Ron Paul forum, he would get more sympathy for him feeling abused by the system. After all, Ron Paul's philosophy does advocate for self responsibility and not having the govt take care of able people. 

Now, I do agree that maybe he should track where his money is going since he claims to live so frugal but I'm not going to criticize him for choosing to pay off bills, tithe to his Church and eat healthier foods. We eat organic foods (researching our food supply is what brought me to Paul. It's not a liberal issue, anyone that eats should be concerned about it!) but it really doesn't cost much more than when we ate conventional foods and ate out all the time. We don't buy the convenience foods though since it's still not that good for you even if it is organic and they are so much more expensive than buying whole foods and preparing from scratch. We just buy our foods in bulk so it is cheaper than buying smaller packages. We don't shop at whole foods since there is not one close by and the one time we went, we weren't that impressed. 

I can kind of understand how he could say that they live better than him. Taking into consideration a lot of their budget is coming from the government they don't have to put out the same work load but they get to do more (even though it seems like he probably could afford to do all the extra stuff that they do, but he has to work to pay for it). He has made choices to be a responsible adult and others that aren't so responsible get a free ride. I too get frustrated, especially after being at the grocery store behind someone in line that is buying a cart full of convenience foods (more costly), a pile of steaks, loads of soda, cookies, crackers and other items and whip out their ebt card to pay for it. Then they get rung up for the bottles of hard alcohol, cigs and cases of beer to which they pay cash for.

----------


## asurfaholic

> This country sucks.  I get so frustrated at times that I find myself wishing for a collapse in hopes that the welfare freebies go away.  I just did my taxes, and had conversations--in one case, a heated argument--with family who did taxes too.  Here is modern Amerika for you.
> 
> My wife and I are pulling in 85k - 100k a year.  Because we "make so much," we do not qualify for government handouts.  Between federal, state and local taxes, 30%+ of our income goes to government right off the bat.  Then over 20% goes to student loans.  We live in a nice two-bedroom apartment and can afford to eat healthy food (Whole Foods, organics, etc).  But we are not rich--we have not been on vacation in almost four years; my wife has wanted/needed a new Macbook for a year but we can't afford one; we buy most of our clothes from the thrift store; we have only been out to eat two times since September; we never pay money for entertainment such as concerts, football games, movie theaters, etc.  
> 
> Two different sets of relatives of mine make around 20k a year.  In both families the wife does not work, only the husband.  One of them makes like $10 an hour at a big-box store, the other probably makes $12ish at a hospital.  One family is expecting a third child, the other the second.  This means that both families get enough tax credits so that they get way more money than they pay in--one is getting almost $10k "back" this April.  Whereas I have to pay my own medical bills, these guys get Medicaid; and for all I know are on food stamps and who knows what else.  Both families seem to eat out as much as they want, pay for entertainment, and in the last 6 months have gone on vacation.  
> 
> In short, because our government is playing Robbin Hood, we have relatives and families in my church who make a fraction of what we make, but live better lifestyles than we do.


When you are focusing on what everyone else has, then you lose sight on the things that really matter. You have a family that needs your love and support. Stop worrying about the people who in your mind are getting out easy, and be thankful for what you have. In my experience, the low rate jobs are thankless jobs, and getting significant respect is really hard to come by. If you and your wife have good jobs, then you probably have good, well respected positions in your community. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor...

----------


## brushfire

> Who is that John Galt?


He's that guy from Wall Drug.

----------


## mojokabobo

I'm sorry, I have not taken the time to read through all of this extensive thread, so I am not sure if I'm repeating something here...

I want to start by saying that I recognize that the way the system is set up that it is sometimes more beneficial to make less money, because the less money you make, the more social support you will receive; because of this, sometimes it does hurt to move up the pay scale. I recognize that. 

There is something interesting to the OP's situation though.. it is fundamentally different than my own, lol. My wife earned her degree in 2007. Between 2003 and 2007 I worked full time, while she worked part time and went through college. Between 2007 and December of 2012, I went to school and worked part time while she worked full time. Because we offset our schoolings, we both were able to graduate essentially debt free. I paid off the only 2000 dollar loan I had to take last month. For posterity, I would like to note that the only year that I filed for grants (pell grants) was my final year of college, as we were getting strapped for cash at that time since we had recently invested a hefty amount of our savings into buying a house (we were able to put down 75k of savings, 25k I had amassed between 2003 and 2009, and 50k my wife had amassed and inherited (half of which was from her father dying)). 

So.. here we are... 9 years into our relationship and we do not have any college loans, we are paying off only about 30k more in house loans (sitting pretty at 315 a month), have about 1k left of our hospital bill from our first child in April, we have never (though we qualified) taken food stamps, WIC, medicare, etc.. and our combined yearly income sits at around 40k (my wife didn't really accept a job in her degree field, more something that she just enjoyed doing, and that had great health insurance and a good daycare plan... those of course, are called offsetting costs... I, of course, am just beginning in my field). On top of that, we have 12k liquid between various savings and checkings (most spoken for, but not yet spent ie insurance house taxes etc), 20k ROTH, 2 other retirement accounts, and probably about 10k in valuables amassed.

Sir, if you and your wife are making 100k a year, and you are in debt... you $#@!ed up somewhere along the line.

----------


## AceNZ

> Tipping is charity, it's completely voluntary too.


You really equate tipping and charity?

Tipping is a reward for a job well done; it's payment for services rendered. Just because it's voluntary doesn't make it charity.

Charity is giving the unearned to people for no reason other than they need it.

----------


## Toureg89

> *Don't you think if you chose not to give to charity you'd be able to afford a laptop for yourself?*
> So you make choices, there is no reason you are getting less than the families making $20,000 a year. Even with all the benefits. I've heard these stories before, nothing is stopping you from taking a pay cut if you are so confident you can qualify for handouts and save money, be better off.


 this. if you desire more and better things (might i add, Whole Foods is pretty luxurious of a extra already), you earned your money, spot giving 10% of it away to charity. give 1%, or 5%, or 8%. with an extra 2,000$, (8% instead of 10% of 100K$/year), you can afford to buy a new laptop AND go out to eat. 

as a broke person myself who badly mismanaged his income by spending it on unnecessary (everything besides a rifle and a pistol) firearms, i made up by skimping on my laptop, which works, albeit with duct tape, super glu, and ubuntu. 

if you desire more, manage you money so that MORE OF IT GOES TO YOU. complaining about something you can't change (tax rates) instead of something you can (how you spend what you are left), although justified, isn't going to help you get what luxuries you want. and fyi, i get my clothes from the thrift store as well.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> yes, but nobody is born with a house. So unless they are inheriting a house, they'll always be paying rent or mortgage, typically 10 years minimum (and that's a VERY conservative estimate, 25 years is realistic)


But you said just for living.  If they pay it off, then they are not in debt.  I guess if you are given a house then you can avoid that altogether, but I was making the distinction between renting indefinitely and actually building equity as you paid off something that you had claim to.  Yes, most people are in debt for finding a place to live at some point in their life unless they have enough money to just pay cash up front for a house, but I really don't see why you thought that was an important point.  It's just a part of life.

----------


## Johnny Appleseed

just think how well you could live only making 5k a year

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The guy's not looking for "sympathy." He resents studying, borrowing, and working his butt off so that others can loaf. I'm surprised we're so divided here. I don't think the welfare state has much to fear, with people bickering about so many peripheral issues.


We all know about the welfare state.  It's no secret.  We're not complaining about the guy thinking he's worse off for having to support others.  It's an atrocity that we have to live in a system like that, but if you come on here saying you have it so bad and exaggerating all these things then letting us know that you voluntarily give away some of your money and don't even try to get some of the tax breaks you can, then we're going to say "Dude, why did you just tell us that?"  

He's not reporting on the dangers of the welfare state.  He IS looking for sympathy.  It's pretty obvious because he complains about the things he can't do with his money and goes over all the details of how poor people can do those things without thinking that he could be doing those things if he managed his finances better.  We're not going to cry for him just because he gets screwed with taxes.  Yeah, most people do and we all know it, but he has no excuse for not living better than he does with that kind of income when many of us, myself included, could probably clean up nicely with that kind of money.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I agree! I completely understand your frustration at the system. I do agree though that you should be itemizing and taking as many deductions as possible.
> 
> What he chooses to spend his money on should be no one's business.


That's just it, though.  He CHOSE to come on here and TELL US how he spends his money.  That's why we're not going to throw a huge pity party for him just yet.

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## moostraks

> We all know about the welfare state.  It's no secret.  We're not complaining about the guy thinking he's worse off for having to support others.  It's an atrocity that we have to live in a system like that, but if you come on here saying you have it so bad and exaggerating all these things then letting us know that you voluntarily give away some of your money and don't even try to get some of the tax breaks you can, then we're going to say "Dude, why did you just tell us that?"  
> 
> He's not reporting on the dangers of the welfare state.  He IS looking for sympathy.  It's pretty obvious because he complains about the things he can't do with his money and goes over all the details of how poor people can do those things without thinking that he could be doing those things if he managed his finances better.  We're not going to cry for him just because he gets screwed with taxes.  Yeah, most people do and we all know it, but he has no excuse for not living better than he does with that kind of income when many of us, myself included, could probably clean up nicely with that kind of money.


 I took his posts the same way you did fwiw.

----------


## Steven Douglas

"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."  
Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada.  

The federal government's response: Pass legislation making gifts taxable - end of discussion.

This is just like HR 1098, the Competing Currencies bill that Ron Paul introduced, as it takes rights and powers we already had by default under the Constitution, but were later eroded, abridged, or taken away entirely by legislation (usually under the widely abused "Commerce" and "Necessary and Proper" clauses, or worse yet - Executive Branch edicts).  

Ron Paul's response: Pass legislation that explicitly spells out what was once taken for granted, and didn't need to be:

----------


## MelissaWV

iGGz why the hell is that your sig?  :>

I was all set to agree with you, but then that.

----------


## onlyrp

But arent cash gifts taxable? Albiet at different rate than income?




> *char·i·ty /ˈCHaritē/*
> Noun:
> The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.
> Help or money given in this way.
> 
> ----
> 
> With the extremely low wages that waiters/waitresses make, I consider them in need of addition money. They need tips.
> 
> ...

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Yeah, I used to think the same thing.  It's amazing how your expenses adjust to fit your income.
> 
> 10 years ago, I only made 1/4 of what I do now, but I had just about the same possessions.  Of course, now I have a family that I'm supporting.  *Trust me, if you go from making $25K to $100K, you won't even notice it.  You'll be just as strapped as ever*.


That's crazy. It has to be the added dependants plus higher tax bracket, right?

----------


## MelissaWV

> That's crazy. It has to be the added dependants plus higher tax bracket, right?


That, and the fact that most parents will suddenly buy their kids literally hundreds of dollars worth of crap in order to be just "average" parents.  Gimme, gimme, gimme.  Most elementary-aged kids I come into contact with have televisions in their rooms, and cellphones once they are young teens.  All of these things for them, but no jobs.

----------


## AceNZ

> *char·i·ty /ˈCHaritē/*
> Noun:
> The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.
> Help or money given in this way.
> 
> ----
> 
> With the extremely low wages that waiters/waitresses make, I consider them in need of addition money. They need tips.


WHY do you think wait-staff are paid low wages? It's because they are told to expect to _earn_ part of what their take-home in the form of tips.

How do you know they actually NEED those extra earnings? Maybe they're working for fun, and living in a plush home with the parents or living off of a trust fund. Maybe they're a co-owner of the restaurant. Working as wait-staff by itself does not indicate need, any more than working in any other profession does.




> Tipping isn't a payment for services rendered. My bill is what I pay for services rendered.


Relatively little of what you pay in your bill goes to the wait-staff. The supposed purpose of a semi-optional tip (tips aren't truly 100% optional) is to encourage better service: worker harder/better and earn more; treat me better, and earn more. It's not if you need more, earn more. In the thousands of times I've eaten out, I've never spoken with a waitress about how much she needs.




> Show me documentation that states it needs to be unearned.


The key is in the word *GIVE* in the definition. Charity is a _gift_, which means no strings attached, which means *unearned*.

----------


## carclinic

> Yeah, I used to think the same thing.  It's amazing how your expenses adjust to fit your income.
> 
> 10 years ago, I only made 1/4 of what I do now, but I had just about the same possessions.  Of course, now I have a family that I'm supporting.  Trust me, if you go from making $25K to $100K, you won't even notice it.  You'll be just as strapped as ever.


I make $35,000 a year and thank God I am over paying my mortage and my car is paid off, and no student loan debt anymore.  I think it is mainly lifestyle that determines these things.  Then again, I owe the government money for taxes because I own a business.

----------


## onlyrp

> I make $35,000 a year and thank God I am over paying my mortage and my car is paid off, and no student loan debt anymore.  I think it is mainly lifestyle that determines these things.  Then again, I owe the government money for taxes because I own a business.


Good to hear. Everybody owes the government taxes unless they're disabled or dirt poor. What kind of business do you run?

----------


## carclinic

> Good to hear. Everybody owes the government taxes unless they're disabled or dirt poor. What kind of business do you run?


Auto repair.  Car Clinic is the company and hence the username, I had another handle here until I was banned for making a joke about Huntsman's daughters.

God has been very good to me, but due to the unknown nature of business (after all cars have to break, I can't just break them!) I have anxiety like anyone.  I live a very simple lifestyle though.  I don't have TV or internet at home, sorta to motivate me to stay at work lol.

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## tbone717

I am coming in late here, so I do not know if it has been mentioned, but it is very advisable for most people to find a way to incorporate.  Corporations buy things, then pay taxes on their profits.  Individuals pay taxes on their income and they buy things with the money left over.  There is a huge tax advantage for those that can incorporate and have a good tax lawyer that knows the system.  A friend of mine owns a bar/restaurant and is incorporated.  All of his possessions (car, computers, home, furnishings, etc) are owned by the corporation, he is a low paid employee.  We are in the process of setting this up for ourselves this year, and I think we will wind up living a lot better.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Tipping is charity, it's completely voluntary too.


"tip" means "to improve service".  It's not charity-it's appreciation for good service and incentive for improved service in the future. (aka, a gratuity)

----------


## onlyrp

> I am coming in late here, so I do not know if it has been mentioned, but it is very advisable for most people to find a way to incorporate.  Corporations buy things, then pay taxes on their profits.  Individuals pay taxes on their income and they buy things with the money left over.  There is a huge tax advantage for those that can incorporate and have a good tax lawyer that knows the system.  A friend of mine owns a bar/restaurant and is incorporated.  All of his possessions (car, computers, home, furnishings, etc) are owned by the corporation, he is a low paid employee.  We are in the process of setting this up for ourselves this year, and I think we will wind up living a lot better.


good luck telling that to a person who fears auditing and therefore foregoes his donations to his church, he gave 10% too.

----------


## onlyrp

> I'm honestly not sure why, but I do think it should be illegal with current minimum wage laws. Maybe because our government is made up of thieves?


I would think so too.

----------


## onlyrp

> "tip" means "to improve service".  It's not charity-it's appreciation for good service and incentive for improved service in the future. (aka, a gratuity)


But I don't appreciate it any more than I appreciate everybody else doing their job for whatever they are paid. I'm not going to foot somebody's bill just because his boss screws him. He agreed to the job, perhaps with reasonable expectations of tips, but not legal guarantees of it. What is the difference between gratuity and charity? Both are given for nothing in return.

----------


## eduardo89

> Moral of the story: Let your wife stay home with the kids... They will all thank you for it later in life.


agreed.

----------


## tbone717

> good luck telling that to a person who fears auditing and therefore foregoes his donations to his church, he gave 10% too.


Oh man, not good.  I have been self employed for 20 something years, home office and all and have never been audited.  I figure if I ever get audited, I get my attorney to handle it.  Just a cost of doing business these days.

----------


## AceNZ

> I'm honestly not sure why, but I do think it should be illegal with current minimum wage laws.


FWIW, where I live now in New Zealand, tips are truly optional. Wages are set appropriately, and most New Zealanders rarely tip.




> The key word your missing is *EXPECTED,* and I don't agree with word _earn_- it should be _RECEIVE_.


If it was just receive, then the person wouldn't be required to do any work to get their tips, and they would be able to keep everything they get. That's not the way it works.




> How do you know they actually DON'T NEED those extra earnings? Maybe they're working for their livelihood, and aren't living in a plush home with parents or off of a trust fund. Maybe they're not a co-owner of the restaurant. And no it's not a definite indication, but I would say a doctor would more often than not need less than someone working as a waiter or waitress.


You can't tell for sure one way or the other. The homeless person sitting on curb outside the restaurant certainly has a larger need than the waiter or waitress with a job. If you're giving based on need, why not give to them instead?




> Tips are truly 100% optional, unless your talking about some type of tip included in the total bill. If I don't want to tip, then I don't have to tip.


You might be able to get away with not tipping once in a given restaurant. I've seen waitresses run outside and scream at people for not leaving a tip. In some places, you'd be lucky to get out the door without tipping. Yes, it's technically not a crime, but it's _expected_. If you don't tip, try going back to the same place again, and you're likely to never get your food, or it will be messed with by the staff before it arrives.




> Who says everyone tips for the same reason? I've known many waiters and waitresses personally who definitely NEED tips. Maybe you should learn to talk to people.


You have no idea who I've talked to or what jobs I've had. And I never said that some wait-staff don't need tips. Most do, but not all.




> Again, show me documentation that states this. And if the keyword is *GIVE*, then I am definitely *GIVING* a tip or a *GIFT* with *NO* strings attached. Seems to fit the definition pretty well to me.


Oh, so you just walk into random restaurants and start handing out money to anyone who works there, whether they serve you or not?

Most people don't tip unless they're served first, in which case _it__'s not a gift_. There are strings, because they require that they are served first. Most people also only tip in proportion to the total cost of the meal. Again, if there were no strings, why should the amount be tied to what you paid?

The "documentation" is the _definition you posted_:

*char·i·ty /ˈCHaritē/*
Noun:
The voluntary *giving* of help, typically money, to those in need.
Help or money given in this way.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to think that the wait-staff didn't actually earn the tip, that you are somehow superior and hugely magnanimous for giving them a gift -- which also implies that they should thank you -- preferably profusely, I'm sure -- then all I can say is I'm sorry that you don't see how horribly demeaning that is. How equating need with work and earning is evil. If I was waiting on you, and you came up to me afterwards and said "You didn't earn this, but I can see that you're in need, so here's a 'gift' for you," I would decline, and you'd be lucky if I didn't punch you in the face.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "tip" means "to improve service".  It's not charity-it's appreciation for good service and incentive for improved service in the future. (aka, a gratuity)


This.  It's an assumed part of the restaurant industry because the waiter's/waitresses earnings can't be totally based on hourly wage.  It has to be at least partially based on performance in order to provide an incentive for good performance in the future, as heavenlyboy pointed out.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But I don't appreciate it any more than I appreciate everybody else doing their job for whatever they are paid. I'm not going to foot somebody's bill just because his boss screws him. He agreed to the job, perhaps with reasonable expectations of tips, but not legal guarantees of it. What is the difference between gratuity and charity? Both are given for nothing in return.


You don't get it.  It MUST be at least partially based on performance.  The BOSS can't pay for the waiter's/waitresses performance because he/she can't determine their performance, only the customer can.  Also, they can't REQUIRE you to pay tips either because you might not be giving a tip simply because you weren't satisfied with the performance, but it is entirely expected of you to tip something.  Of course it's not illegal to not tip, and thank God we don't have another law like that, but it is definitely a significant part of their income and if you are better at your job, you get more money.  The bill is what you pay the company to compensate for the product you consumed, and the tip is the waiter's/waitresses performance-based pay.  If they are doing that job, they must expect to get at least something for their performance, or else they should get another job because they can't succeed in that business.

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## MelissaWV

> Moral of the story: Let your wife stay home with the kids... They will all thank you for it later in life.


Or let yourself stay home with the kids, if mommy is making more or is in a steadier industry

----------


## onlyrp

> You don't get it.  It MUST be at least partially based on performance.  The BOSS can't pay for the waiter's/waitresses performance because he/she can't determine their performance, only the customer can.  Also, they can't REQUIRE you to pay tips either because you might not be giving a tip simply because you weren't satisfied with the performance, but it is entirely expected of you to tip something.  Of course it's not illegal to not tip, and thank God we don't have another law like that, but it is definitely a significant part of their income and if you are better at your job, you get more money.  The bill is what you pay the company to compensate for the product you consumed, and the tip is the waiter's/waitresses performance-based pay.  If they are doing that job, they must expect to get at least something for their performance, or else they should get another job because they can't succeed in that business.


I do get what they are assuming and expecting, I just don't agree with them, and like you said, I am not required. So it's completely voluntary on my part, until there's a sign that says "all customers agree to tip at minimum _%" or a law that says so, it's my choice and it's a gratuitous gift. The boss CAN pay for the waiter's performance because he has a minimum expectation of it, anybody who does not meet the basics can get fired, or anybody who gets complained by the customer can get fired. Yes, they should get another job if not getting tips would hurt them, that's my opinion, but it's their call, if there's enough people to tip them, I'll be the stiffer. If there's not, that's their problem. I'm fine with explicit rules, I hate implied expectations.

----------


## onlyrp

> If I was waiting on you, and you came up to me afterwards and said "You didn't earn this, but I can see that you're in need, so here's a 'gift' for you," I would decline, and you'd be lucky if I didn't punch you in the face.


therefore you should be happy if I stiffed you silently and walked away. Because I can be honest with you, and you can be honest with me, but if you wanna get violent over 5 bucks, I'll avoid you, and save my money.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Gratuity - a decidedly American thing, for the most part. 

Throughout most of China tipping is not customary.  Not only is it not expected, it can produce a variety of reactions when tried - positive and negative, depending on how it's given and to whom it is offered.  But regardless, the reaction is typically one of surprise.

I asked an Australian expat friend, "Was it difficult for you to get used to not tipping when you first moved here to China?" 

His response, "No, mate, it wasn't difficult at all, because we don't tip in Australia. But you yanks have $#@!ed the market up in metropolitan areas with all your tipping."

There has always been a problem in major metropolitan areas, like Shanghai and Beijing, where foreigners are in great numbers, and where help staff was incentivized to give better service to tippers (typically Americans), and "lesser" service as a consequence, and by contrast, to others.  That poses problems to a firm that is marketing to all nationalities, and don't want their market limited to customary tippers, while repelling those who do not tip, but won't come back because of sub-standard service.  

Sure enough, at nicer hotels and restaurants in Shanghai and Beijing, individual tipping could only be discouraged by placing a mandatory gratuity onto each bill.  That's a zero sum gain that _makes everyone a tipper_, regardless of their custom or country of origin. All the firm really needed to do was itemize the cost, to show that "Service" was paid for in full, and we are back to help staff merely having to do their jobs as dictated by management.  

In the U.S., the custom of tipping only showed restaurants, etc., that we are willing to pay more for good service - which meant they could pay their help staff less, because these firms could now factor in tips when hiring. And that's the rub of it all, because if we didn't tip, bars and restaurants would be forced to pay more for help.  We would see the same bills, as if we had all tipped, but the wages of the help staff would not be partially dependent on the generosity and/or tipping customs of each customer. 

The rub, in my mind, is that a waiter or waitress cannot negotiate, up front and individually with each customer, for tips.  The restaurant or bar can set their price.  $3 for a drink, $11.95 for the meal, and that is a binding contract.  The help staff, on the other hand, cannot say, for example, "I'll be serving you, and my fee for this service is $___."  No contractual obligation whatsoever is established, nor can there be if mandatory gratuities are not applied.  Which leaves it to each individual to determine, according to their individual thoughts about gratuity. 

So some people think "Forget it. The help staff is already getting paid, and should be content with their wages. They agreed to their price, and that's not my problem. Anything I give is extra - a "bonus", or a "gift" - so why should I tip someone for just doing their job?". Others, however, will think, "I know that the help staff is getting paid less because the firm factored that in when hiring.  So if I don't tip, the waiter/waitress may be working for $2 an hour (in some states)." So a tip comes as a matter of course, even if the service was average.  The average food had to be paid for, so why not the average service? 

I don't really have a position on what, if anything, "ought" to be done about it.  But I do think it's easy enough to describe accurately - especially pointing to responses in this thread, which stand as strong evidence that virtually everyone has a different thought about tipping, and what it means to each when they do it. Or refrain from doing it.

----------


## onlyrp

> Gratuity - a decidedly American thing, for the most part. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really have a position on what, if anything, "ought" to be done about it.  But I do think it's easy enough to describe accurately - especially pointing to responses in this thread, which stand as strong evidence that virtually everyone has a different thought about tipping, and what it means to each when they do it. Or refrain from doing it.


I do. Know your rights, the waiter can find a better job, and you can pay what you want. Until there's a law that says otherwise. I can live with being called "rude" or "cheap", I can't live with being pressured or guilted into paying what I have better use for.

----------


## AceNZ

> therefore you should be happy if I stiffed you silently and walked away. Because I can be honest with you, and you can be honest with me, but if you wanna get violent over 5 bucks, I'll avoid you, and save my money.


It's not the money that would make me consider violence (I said I would turn down the money). It's the demeaning insult.

How would you know to avoid me, if you treat all servers that way?

If you honestly think that a server didn't earn a tip, then yes, please walk away rather than showering them with your pity and "charity."

----------


## AceNZ

> You said it, not me. Quite the assumptions though. I had a feeling you'd drag it down to this level, typical. BTW- I'd knock your sorry NZ ass out after your weak punch to my face and then get you fired from your crappy job


Not surprisingly, you completely missed my point.

----------


## AceNZ

> The rub, in my mind, is that a waiter or waitress cannot negotiate, up front and individually with each customer, for tips.


Oh, you'd be surprised what a motivated server can negotiate (either implicitly or explicitly), particularly with repeat customers. Just because it's not often done doesn't mean it can't be done.

----------


## onlyrp

> It's not the money that would make me consider violence (I said I would turn down the money). It's the demeaning insult.
> 
> How would you know to avoid me, if you treat all servers that way?
> 
> If you honestly think that a server didn't earn a tip, then yes, please walk away rather than showering them with your pity and "charity."


I don't take chances, I avoid confrontation as much as possible. My rule is servers do their job, I can make a complaint to get them fired, or else they're just doing what they are expected by everybody. I understand nobody shares my views, so I don't need to lecture them, but if you ever ask me, I have no problem telling you "you didn't earn anything extra, but if you need money, just say it". If it's insulting to be told you need money, then logically you can't and shouldn't complain if you're not tipped. Other than public workers, who else isn't expected to greet customers with a smile and "customer is always right"? Who else gets tipped just for making customers welcome at home?

----------


## onlyrp

> Oh, you'd be surprised what a motivated server can negotiate (either implicitly or explicitly), particularly with repeat customers. Just because it's not often done doesn't mean it can't be done.


I agree, even a cheapskate like me can be induced into giving up some , some of the time. Not hard either, but "automatically tipping" is not for me.

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## Danke

> I don't take chances, I avoid confrontation as much as possible.


We call that being a coward, a bootlicker, etc.  Nazis love guys like you.

You are actually a hindrance to the rest of us working towards liberty.

Why are you on this forum?  Have you not been banned many times before, honestly?

----------


## onlyrp

> We call that being a coward, a bootlicker, etc.  Nazis love guys like you.
> 
> You are actually a hindrance to the rest of us working towards liberty.
> 
> Why are you on this forum?  Have you not been banned many times before, honestly?


If confrontation is what you call "working towards liberty", go for it, I'm not standing in your way. I am on here because I like reading and talking to people of similar mindset, banned from what?

----------


## tttppp

> I don't take chances, I avoid confrontation as much as possible. My rule is servers do their job, I can make a complaint to get them fired, or else they're just doing what they are expected by everybody. I understand nobody shares my views, so I don't need to lecture them, but if you ever ask me, I have no problem telling you "you didn't earn anything extra, but if you need money, just say it". If it's insulting to be told you need money, then logically you can't and shouldn't complain if you're not tipped. Other than public workers, who else isn't expected to greet customers with a smile and "customer is always right"? Who else gets tipped just for making customers welcome at home?


I kind of agree with you. I hate paying tips. The restaurants should set a fixed price and I'll pay it. I go to eat for the food, not for the waiters. That said, I pay the standard 15% to avoid pissing them off. I don't want to come back there again and have them spit in my food.

There is no reason for this bs tips process. I've worked in the service industry before and at my company tips for employees was banned. That didn't have an effect on service at all. Under my management, the service was excellent. Employees were motivated without tips. Its not the customers job to motivate employees to do their job.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I do. Know your rights, the waiter can find a better job, and you can pay what you want. Until there's a law that says otherwise. I can live with being called "rude" or "cheap", I can't live with being pressured or guilted into paying what I have better use for.

----------


## AceNZ

> And not surprisingly, you missed mine.


Perhaps. But I did at least have the courtesy to respond in detail to your prior post, rather than just dismissing it.

----------


## onlyrp

> 


exactly, as you can see, this was back in the days when learning to type would get you a better job. I hated the rest of the movie though

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I do get what they are assuming and expecting, I just don't agree with them, and like you said, I am not required. So it's completely voluntary on my part, until there's a sign that says "all customers agree to tip at minimum _%" or a law that says so, it's my choice and it's a gratuitous gift. The boss CAN pay for the waiter's performance because he has a minimum expectation of it, anybody who does not meet the basics can get fired, or anybody who gets complained by the customer can get fired. Yes, they should get another job if not getting tips would hurt them, that's my opinion, but it's their call, if there's enough people to tip them, I'll be the stiffer. If there's not, that's their problem. I'm fine with explicit rules, I hate implied expectations.


No, the boss cannot pay according to performance.  He/she can only pay for the performance he/she expects, but he/she cannot measure the customer's satisfaction or know the perception that the customer had of the wait staff's performance.  The boss can pay for doing what they are paid to do, you know, run through the motions, but they cannot possibly come up with a price for how the customer feels about the wait staffer's performance.  Only the customer can do that, but regardless, it is earned pay because it is pay for services rendered.  This doesn't only include the consumed product, which is what the bill is for, but also for the promptness and friendliness of the wait staff.  If the wait staff meets expectations or better, they get a generous tip because they earned it.  What they did was WORTH something.  If it were just a gift, it would not be worth anything.  The reason there's no standard is because of the reasons I mentioned above: you can't have a standard and still allow the customer to decide what the services rendered was worth.  If the choice is taken away, then that nullifies the whole purpose of tipping.  

That's so funny that you are fine with expelicit rules, like the ones Congress passes all the time, and yet a free market-oriented service and payment does not earn your respect.  Why is this, might I ask?  What's so wrong with the implicit expectation that the employee's services are good enough to earn a tip?  The ONLY reason we have tips is to provide a performance-oriented incentive for the employees, not as charity.  It's a part of the job, not just some whim of good will you have occasionally.  

I'm sure you do tip and that it's because you know it's expected of you because to not tip would be to imply that the wait staff's services were worthless.  However, you like to hide your obligation to tip under the facade of altruism.  Regardless, tips are payment for a service as I have clearly demonstrated because it is there for the specific reason of giving incentive, not just for generosity.  If this is the case, why don't they do that at other jobs?

----------


## Noclone

> Or let yourself stay home with the kids, if mommy is making more or is in a steadier industry


Agree with this as well. I stayed home when my first was born, while my wife worked. I was offered a job a few months later with better pay than hers, so we switched. Worked out great! We haven't regretted it for one second. One income and we are making it just fine. Unlike the OP, we know how to manage our income.

----------


## LBennett76

My 2 cents on tipping...
I was a waitress for 6 years making 2.13/hr. And I made fabulous tips (average $15/hr) because I did a fantastic job for my customers. I had customers come in and ask specifically for me because they knew I would make their dining experience better. Then you'd have the non-tippers come in and as soon as you saw them you'd pray to God they weren't sat in your section because they also tended to be the most needy customers who ran your butt everywhere. I always treated all my customers the same though I would silently curse the non-tippers for ordering an insane amount of food, needing 50 refills, plus this then that then this again for nothing and interfering with the service I was trying to give to my good tippers. We had to report a percentage of our total sales as tips whether we made it or not and that was then taxed, so a group of 4 that ends up ordering $100 worth of food (at Bob Evans mind you) and then stiffed me was indirectly costing me money as I was taxed for what they were supposed to give me. On a couple occasions that $100 table (as they came in once or twice a week) gave me a dollar or two. One guy with missing fingers used to wave my dollar tip at me and make me grasp for it while he'd pull it away. Sure I'd laugh along, but all the while seething because Mr. 20-freaking refills of rootbeer was toying with me for a buck. lol Fortunately I had a 70-something guy come in 3 times a week, sit only in my section, and leave me $20 everytime. So it all balanced out. But some customers were just whacked out. HAHA
As far as paying the servers more, when minimum wage went up in Ohio (and server wages went to 3-something), the result was the firing of busboys. The servers then had the work of cleaning the tables added to their duties. If you paid them minimum wage 1. Who knows what other work they would add? and 2. There'd probably be fewer servers because the restaurant couldn't afford them. Both of which would take away from the dining experience. Service would be abysmal. Also, who the hell would wait tables only to end up making minimum wage? Who would work for $2-3/hr with no tips? I liked the competitiveness of waitressing. I loved when we counted tips at the end of the night and seeing that I made more than the grouchy sucky servers. I prided myself on great service and liked the tips I had to show for it. That's the free market. You market yourself and see what you get. I was a good marketer.

----------


## Steven Douglas

I taught my daughters very early in life that there are many ways to gauge a person's character, one of which is how they treat/view servers at a restaurant. Those who reckon everything by the letter of the law -- and rights, duties and forced obligations only, do indeed have the right to be $#@!s in a free society. Even obnoxious $#@!s. There's nothing special about them, but that is their right, and I wouldn't do anything to change that. 

For server staff in a "tipping culture", like ours, restaurants are privately controlled sandboxes as far as free markets go (and I don't mean places like Starbucks or a doughnut shop, where bandwagon morons take Sharpies and dress up plastic cups borrowed from homeless people to put on their counter, and join in on the tipping bandwagon, as they try to guilt people into tipping for just taking an order).  

Servers in restaurants can't refuse service to the dreaded known non-tippers (on that basis alone), who, like our Reservoir Dog, Mr. Pink, believes that the cost of the server is (or should be) already fully included in the price of the food and drinks. So what. Big deal, life's full of $#@!s. And, like LBennet76 said, that can be more than compensated for by great service to _other customers_ who do tip. That's not to the credit of the cheapskate, or the restaurant, but it is the reality. 

In a truly free market, a server could choose to simply not wait on a table of known non-tippers, or those who dangle a single dollar bill as if it was some kind of juicy plum. They really could just go screw themselves, as the non-tipper would deserve whatever sub-standard service or non-service they get -- assuming they're locals, or not foreigners, and do understand the customs, whether or not they agree with them.  But again, it's not a free market. It's the restaurant's private market place, and the restaurant (rightly) holds a monopoly on who can serve on its behalf.  And their concern is not with tips, but the sale of food and drinks - and those prices, unlike gratuity, are more than set, agreed to, and enforced.  

The irony here:  If everyone was a Mr. Pink, and tipping stopped altogether - restaurants would not be able to attract decent help without being forced to make up the difference in the prices - itemized as mandatory gratuities - thus forcing ALL customers, including the Mr. Pinks of the world, into being "tippers".  Just like what happens in Beijing, Shanghai and other places that have a majority of non-tippers as customers.  The price simply goes up for everyone.   

The downside yin to that yang: erstwhile big tippers would pay less, while erstwhile cheapskates would be forced to pay more.  Sounds good to some on paper, but that also means that good servers might not earn $15 an hour either, as few customers would tip more, knowing in advance that a gratuity was mandatory. In addition, the restaurant would now control more of what the servers made, with no rule that says that a 15% gratuity automatically goes to the server.  So in the end it's a wash, which is partly why I have no normative "ought" position on the subject.

----------


## tttppp

> No, the boss cannot pay according to performance.  He/she can only pay for the performance he/she expects, but he/she cannot measure the customer's satisfaction or know the perception that the customer had of the wait staff's performance.  The boss can pay for doing what they are paid to do, you know, run through the motions, but they cannot possibly come up with a price for how the customer feels about the wait staffer's performance.  Only the customer can do that, but regardless, it is earned pay because it is pay for services rendered.  This doesn't only include the consumed product, which is what the bill is for, but also for the promptness and friendliness of the wait staff.  If the wait staff meets expectations or better, they get a generous tip because they earned it.  What they did was WORTH something.  If it were just a gift, it would not be worth anything.  The reason there's no standard is because of the reasons I mentioned above: you can't have a standard and still allow the customer to decide what the services rendered was worth.  If the choice is taken away, then that nullifies the whole purpose of tipping.  
> 
> That's so funny that you are fine with expelicit rules, like the ones Congress passes all the time, and yet a free market-oriented service and payment does not earn your respect.  Why is this, might I ask?  What's so wrong with the implicit expectation that the employee's services are good enough to earn a tip?  The ONLY reason we have tips is to provide a performance-oriented incentive for the employees, not as charity.  It's a part of the job, not just some whim of good will you have occasionally.  
> 
> I'm sure you do tip and that it's because you know it's expected of you because to not tip would be to imply that the wait staff's services were worthless.  However, you like to hide your obligation to tip under the facade of altruism.  Regardless, tips are payment for a service as I have clearly demonstrated because it is there for the specific reason of giving incentive, not just for generosity.  If this is the case, why don't they do that at other jobs?


Why not leave a tip for the chefs too while you're at it? The food is far more important than who serves it. As long as a waiter is on time and get my order correct, I could care less about the service. Why not run a wait staff the way you run any other staff, and that is have the management responsible for motivating the wait staff. Why is it necessary for customers to manage the wait staff? Its not their job. When I go to a restaurant, I don't want the burden of managing someone's wait staff, thats their job, not mine.

----------


## onlyrp

> Why not leave a tip for the chefs too while you're at it? The food is far more important than who serves it. As long as a waiter is on time and get my order correct, I could care less about the service. Why not run a wait staff the way you run any other staff, and that is have the management responsible for motivating the wait staff. Why is it necessary for customers to manage the wait staff? Its not their job. When I go to a restaurant, I don't want the burden of managing someone's wait staff, thats their job, not mine.


according to the Mr. Pink video, "because society says so", there is no reason a waiter is more deserving of your gratuity than any other worker who serves a customer, waiters are what they are because they job requires very little skill, they are free to quit and find a better job if they like.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending...164624882.html

----------


## onlyrp

> That's so funny that you are fine with expelicit rules, like the ones Congress passes all the time, and yet a free market-oriented service and payment does not earn your respect.  Why is this, might I ask?  What's so wrong with the implicit expectation that the employee's services are good enough to earn a tip?  The ONLY reason we have tips is to provide a performance-oriented incentive for the employees, not as charity.  It's a part of the job, not just some whim of good will you have occasionally.


Nothing's wrong, just don't get mad at me when I choose to exercise my rights. 




> I'm sure you do tip and that it's because you know it's expected of you because to not tip would be to imply that the wait staff's services were worthless.  However, you like to hide your obligation to tip under the facade of altruism.  Regardless, tips are payment for a service as I have clearly demonstrated because it is there for the specific reason of giving incentive, not just for generosity.  If this is the case, why don't they do that at other jobs?


Yes, I do believe their service is worthless, at least, worthless above what they are already paid and nothing I can't stand up and do myself. Write my order on a piece of paper? I can do it. Go pick up my order from the kitchen? No problem, it's my meal, I'll gladly do it for free too. I don't hide anything I do as altruism, I truly hate it. There's a reason they're paid less than most jobs, because that's what their job is worth. The market has decided that for them.

----------


## onlyrp

> My 2 cents on tipping...
> I was a waitress for 6 years making 2.13/hr. And I made fabulous tips (average $15/hr) because I did a fantastic job for my customers. I had customers come in and ask specifically for me because they knew I would make their dining experience better. Then you'd have the non-tippers come in and as soon as you saw them you'd pray to God they weren't sat in your section because they also tended to be the most needy customers who ran your butt everywhere.


No worries, that's not me. I ask for the bare basics. 




> I always treated all my customers the same though I would silently curse the non-tippers for ordering an insane amount of food, needing 50 refills, plus this then that then this again for nothing and interfering with the service I was trying to give to my good tippers.


What are they gonna do to you if you ignore them? Slap you?




> We had to report a percentage of our total sales as tips whether we made it or not and that was then taxed, so a group of 4 that ends up ordering $100 worth of food (at Bob Evans mind you) and then stiffed me was indirectly costing me money as I was taxed for what they were supposed to give me.


Sounds tough, but nobody is forcing you to work that job.




> On a couple occasions that $100 table (as they came in once or twice a week) gave me a dollar or two. One guy with missing fingers used to wave my dollar tip at me and make me grasp for it while he'd pull it away. Sure I'd laugh along, but all the while seething because Mr. 20-freaking refills of rootbeer was toying with me for a buck.


That's the risk of the job. There's a reason nobody else wants to work there, and there's no shortage of people who need money.




> lol Fortunately I had a 70-something guy come in 3 times a week, sit only in my section, and leave me $20 everytime. So it all balanced out. But some customers were just whacked out. HAHA
> As far as paying the servers more, when minimum wage went up in Ohio (and server wages went to 3-something), the result was the firing of busboys. The servers then had the work of cleaning the tables added to their duties. If you paid them minimum wage 1. Who knows what other work they would add? and 2. There'd probably be fewer servers because the restaurant couldn't afford them.


Whose loss would that ultimately be? I love how people phrase things as if it's going to hurt consumers. 




> Both of which would take away from the dining experience. Service would be abysmal. Also, who the hell would wait tables only to end up making minimum wage?


Nobody if they had a choice, everybody if they didn't.




> Who would work for $2-3/hr with no tips?


Seen homeless people? Seen Africa?




> I liked the competitiveness of waitressing. I loved when we counted tips at the end of the night and seeing that I made more than the grouchy sucky servers. I prided myself on great service and liked the tips I had to show for it. That's the free market. You market yourself and see what you get. I was a good marketer.


You manage to earn them, that's good, but you can't fault a person for not appreciating you with their buck. Not until there's a legal obligation or explicit contract. Do you tip your friend for giving you a ride? Do you give a donation every time you're invited to a dinner party? Oh, ever asked to use a restroom when you're not a customer?

----------


## tttppp

> according to the Mr. Pink video, "because society says so", there is no reason a waiter is more deserving of your gratuity than any other worker who serves a customer, waiters are what they are because they job requires very little skill, they are free to quit and find a better job if they like.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending...164624882.html


As long as restaurants don't pay waiters themselves, we are kind of forced into paying some kind of tip. If you leave the kind of tip that guy left, you're guaranteed to get spit or worse in your food next time you go there. The only way out of this is for companies to simply say they don't except tips.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Yes, I do believe their service is worthless, at least, worthless above what they are already paid and nothing I can't stand up and do myself. Write my order on a piece of paper? I can do it. Go pick up my order from the kitchen? No problem, it's my meal, I'll gladly do it for free too.


Yeah, it's called a buffet, or a fast food restaurant, or a 7-11 with burritos and a microwave, or cold wrapped sandwiches.  There are tons of ways to eat without taking advantage of a bad situation that you know exists, but will still sit your cheap ass down and exploit as you rationalize it according to your own, very different, paradigm.  Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to eat at restaurants that pay $2 an hour to their servers (not the cooks, not the bus boys or other staff - just the servers).  If you think $2 an hour is "already paid", or that gratuities to such people are somehow based on altruism or charity, that's fine. Technically speaking, you have that "right".  However, Mr. Pink, I think you know better than that. 

At the very least, the thought that you would actually complain to a manager about service that you know is priced/valued at .50 cents or less (without gratuity) is strange to me.  It's practically free at that price, so what could you _possibly_ have to complain about?

----------


## onlyrp

> At the very least, the thought that you would actually complain to a manager about service that you know is priced/valued at .50 cents or less (without gratuity) is strange to me.  It's practically free at that price, so what could you _possibly_ have to complain about?


I wouldn't complain as long as it's done to its basic legal minimum.

----------


## LBennett76

I think if you don't plan on tipping you should tell the server so they can make sure not to bust their ass for you. They'll get you when they get you and if you don't like it you can take your ass home and get your own damn food. Ignore a customer who wants your attention? HAHAHAHA You get your apron pulled on, you get tripped, they come up and get in your face... yeah. Not everybody is as basic as you are in desire for service. I had someone follow me into the bathroom once to tell me they needed a refill right away. I honestly don't think you've ever worked a day in serving the public else you would have a VERY different view.
And yes, I give my friends gas money for giving me a ride. Never been to a dinner party. I'm poor and so are my friends, so that kinda high falutin' stuff doesn't exist around these parts. And I do ask if I can use the bathroom if I'm not a customer, or I purchase something like a candy bar or something when I come out. 
Can I ask what the "basic legal minimum" is?

Edited to add: If servers only made $3/hr and no tips, there would be no restaurants because no one would work for that. NO ONE. You can make better money getting welfare. And if you want homeless people serving your food. Have at it. And how Africans could fly over to work and then back home again off $3/hr seems incredibly... impossible.

----------


## Griffith

Sheesh, I have several pieces of new furniture, eat out multiple times every weekend, have internet, cell phone, etc. And I wonder where my money goes, I guess that's it.

----------


## onlyrp

> I think if you don't plan on tipping you should tell the server so they can make sure not to bust their ass for you. They'll get you when they get you and if you don't like it you can take your ass home and get your own damn food. Ignore a customer who wants your attention? HAHAHAHA You get your apron pulled on, you get tripped, they come up and get in your face... yeah. Not everybody is as basic as you are in desire for service. I had someone follow me into the bathroom once to tell me they needed a refill right away. I honestly don't think you've ever worked a day in serving the public else you would have a VERY different view.
> And yes, I give my friends gas money for giving me a ride. Never been to a dinner party. I'm poor and so are my friends, so that kinda high falutin' stuff doesn't exist around these parts. And I do ask if I can use the bathroom if I'm not a customer, or I purchase something like a candy bar or something when I come out. 
> Can I ask what the "basic legal minimum" is?
> 
> Edited to add: If servers only made $3/hr and no tips, there would be no restaurants because no one would work for that. NO ONE. You can make better money getting welfare. And if you want homeless people serving your food. Have at it. And how Africans could fly over to work and then back home again off $3/hr seems incredibly... impossible.


You are correct that it's better to live on welfare than on $3 an hour, but just wait until welfare goes away, then we'll see people working for $1/hr. I answered your question, there are people who will work for that if there were no alternatives. 

Basic legal minimum is, the local and state regulations on how restaurants (as well as other businesses) are required to operate, that is to say, their sanitation, food quality, charging only what the menu says,...etc. I believe laws are strict enough that I wouldn't need to ask for more. I don't consider writing down my order and delivering my order from the kitchen "busting my ass" and I wouldn't ask for more than that. You are correct that I never worked in the service industry, and that's because I have many other choices, I would probably work there if my other options were worse.

----------


## onlyrp

> Sheesh, I have several pieces of new furniture, eat out multiple times every weekend, have internet, cell phone, etc. And I wonder where my money goes, I guess that's it.


OP is MIA. And the thread lives on.

----------


## tttppp

> I think if you don't plan on tipping you should tell the server so they can make sure not to bust their ass for you. They'll get you when they get you and if you don't like it you can take your ass home and get your own damn food. Ignore a customer who wants your attention? HAHAHAHA You get your apron pulled on, you get tripped, they come up and get in your face... yeah. Not everybody is as basic as you are in desire for service. I had someone follow me into the bathroom once to tell me they needed a refill right away. I honestly don't think you've ever worked a day in serving the public else you would have a VERY different view.
> And yes, I give my friends gas money for giving me a ride. Never been to a dinner party. I'm poor and so are my friends, so that kinda high falutin' stuff doesn't exist around these parts. And I do ask if I can use the bathroom if I'm not a customer, or I purchase something like a candy bar or something when I come out. 
> Can I ask what the "basic legal minimum" is?
> 
> Edited to add: If servers only made $3/hr and no tips, there would be no restaurants because no one would work for that. NO ONE. You can make better money getting welfare. And if you want homeless people serving your food. Have at it. And how Africans could fly over to work and then back home again off $3/hr seems incredibly... impossible.


I was never a waiter but did work in the service industry. Our employees did a better job than any waiter I've seen, and they did it for just minimum wage. Its called management. If restaurant owners want waiters to do their job, they need to do a better job managing their business, and stop relying on customers to do their job for them.

----------


## AceNZ

> I don't consider writing down my order and delivering my order from the kitchen "busting my ass" and I wouldn't ask for more than that.


If you think that's all servers normally do, you are sorely mistaken.

----------


## onlyrp

> If you think that's all servers normally do, you are sorely mistaken.


That's all they do for me, and that's all I ask them to do, plus work the register.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> *A lot of commenters seem to be missing the bigger point here. Even if it is not quite literally true that OP is worse off than those who make $20K, it is still ludicrous that it is even close.* There's not a whole lot of incentive to 'move up', work hard and make a decent middle class income, if your real gains are partly eaten up by taxes and partly nonexistent because the government would have given you all that stuff for free anyway. I mean, suppose you make the case that OP is actually $10K per year better off (in some sense), rather than worse off, compared to those with a $20K income... that still means that *the vast majority of the gains are completely eaten by government.*





> *the point here is that incentives are being stripped away from our society*. the healthcare aspect is a big part of this. essentially one family is earning 500% of what the other family is earning, yet their lifestyles are perceptibly comparable. this is hardly the only example of the problem. *even if OP budgeted in accordance with the "advice" given in this thread, the problem isn't solved, its only a little less obvious. take a guess at what happens to societies that have shrinking incentives to accumulate wealth?*





> *Production drops and everybody suffers*.





> *It is interesting that many people are suggesting the OP cut back the tithe, when the better answer is to cut back the taxes - which is exactly what he's trying to do by supporting Dr. Paul.*





> Finally, someone gets it. I was wondering if I was on the right forum, after reading some of the responses. "He just wants to diss the poor" is about what they say at TNR also, about a similar article:
> 
> http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/con...rt-fox-de-rugy





> I agree, but the issue is somewhat complex.  *We're stuck in a market where people are forced to pay extraordinary fees for college education.*  It's a classic "prisoner's dilemma" economics issue.  The government needs to get rid of student loan guarantees completely.  *All they do is perpetuate a costly, inefficient, and archaic education system.  One person can't buck the system by himself, though.*





> *Like the other guy said, people are nitpicking at the details and not giving enough attention to the larger issue raised.* Same with the Emmerich article picked apart by TNR.
> 
> They were talking off the tops of their heads, but what they said is still largely true, or we wouldn't be in this forum.
> 
> *I'd love to see a real comparison between the two situations. Exactly how much better off is someone who makes $80,000, versus someone who makes $20,000, or $0?*
> 
> It's definitely not by $60,000 or $80,000, correct? So how much more is it?





> *The OP has basically been conscripted into involuntary servitude to nameless/faceless others* from January through the middle of April. It's starting to make sense to me now why the IRS has a mid-April filing deadline.


+++++++++++++++++1




> I like your point here.  God is all-powerful and money doesn't really serve any heavenly purpose.  The interesting thing is that the Catholic church, which requires tithing, is much like the government in that it fools many people into believing the establishment to which they are donating actually needs the money when it is way too big to begin with.  If you look at the history of how the *Catholic church was tied to the state* in the past, it makes a lot of sense.  The Catholic *church has fostered a dependence of its constituents on the church so that they can thrive from other people's money*.


extra ++++++++1



Again, of course, it could be said that OP could perhaps manage his finances better but that shouldn't be the point, the point is that he & his wife are 5 times more productive (100000:20000) compared to those other families & yet he & his wife are far from enjoying 5 times the living standard, which as has been said, must get us to question the system more than questioning OP's finances; agreed, OP went a little overboard in a hyperbolic sense in saying that _"they're living BETTER than me"_ but the fact that the difference between their lifestyles is not even close to 5:1 should be alarming, we should be more irate about the gross misapplication of resources that are being STOLEN from OP than his finances

How he manages his finances, how much he gives to Church is his business but the amount of money that's sucked out of him (& millions of us) is the problem & it's NOT just about the income tax, people think about it right away because it's "visible" but there's much much more that people pay indirectly through corporate-taxes & others which are simply passed on to the people & no group, government or any other, should be able to STEAL all that money from people who've earned through contracts of mutual consent & then government uses a little bit of that money to BUY VOTES by fostering socialism & gobbles up most of the rest without a trace, that's the problem & that's what we should be focusing on

As has been said before, blaming OP for taking the student-loan is justifiable to a degree BUT let's not overlook the government's role in causing the prices of education to skyrocket, if it wasn't for government, may be he would still have been in debt but it would be much less & OP would have more disposable income as he should & for that, government must share the blame.

----------


## Ireland4Liberty

> You made a hefty investment for _potential_ future income increases you're paying for now.


THIS. The difference between you and them is that you are going somewhere.

----------


## LBennett76

> I was never a waiter but did work in the service industry. Our employees did a better job than any waiter I've seen, and they did it for just minimum wage. Its called management. If restaurant owners want waiters to do their job, they need to do a better job managing their business, and stop relying on customers to do their job for them.


They've never seen how hard I worked then. When you're working 6 tables at once and doing all the stuff for them (drinks, salad, bread, soup, order taking, food bringing, refills) as well as your behind the counter duties (stocking glasses, wrapping silverware, filling salad cases, stocking everything else) and then bussing and cleaning your own tables, it would get HECTIC. Then you have to find time to turn ring the order up to give them the check which takes several minutes using the touchscreen computer. All while two tables are waving glasses for refills, one's food is up, one wants dessert, and you just got sat a new table that you've got to take silverware and get their drink order. Anyone who think all waitstaff does is take their order and bring them food has no clue what actually goes on in a restaurant. And I absolutely LOVED that job. Good exercise and decent money for a single mom (no welfare) who was also going to college at the same time.
Currently I work 2 jobs and 1 of them is working minimum wage ($7.70/hr) at Wendy's. I bust my ass at that job too. I get pissed off because I end up doing twice the work of people half my age because they're all a bunch of lazy entitled little snots who are compelled to text every 5 seconds... and I still get paid exactly the same as them. There are no raises because our store is a small low profit store. Become a shift manager and you get a whopping $.70 an hour more. I was a manger until I realized how absolutely worthless that was.
There have been people who've lost their jobs in the steel industry and the coal mines who've come in to work at Wendy's and quit within a few weeks because they couldn't hack it. It wasn't that it was beneath them, they just couldn't keep up and remember the list of 20some things that were their responsibilities. And honestly, it really is sucky thankless job.

----------


## onlyrp

> Again, of course, it could be said that OP could perhaps manage his finances better but that shouldn't be the point, the point is that he & his wife are 5 times more productive (100000:20000) compared to those other families & yet he & his wife are far from enjoying 5 times the living standard, which as has been said, must get us to question the system more than questioning OP's finances; agreed, OP went a little overboard in a hyperbolic sense in saying that _"they're living BETTER than me"_ but the fact that the difference between their lifestyles is not even close to 5:1 should be alarming, we should be more irate about the gross misapplication of resources that are being STOLEN from OP than his finances


Wrong, they are living quite close to 5x better than them. They get to donate to church, they have student loans to pay. They don't have child expenses like their $20,000 counterparts do. That's a good 3-4x better if you ask me.

----------


## onlyrp

> They've never seen how hard I worked then. When you're working 6 tables at once and doing all the stuff for them (drinks, salad, bread, soup, order taking, food bringing, refills) as well as your behind the counter duties (stocking glasses, wrapping silverware, filling salad cases, stocking everything else) and then bussing and cleaning your own tables, it would get HECTIC.


Why don't they just hire another person? It's only gonna be $3 an hour for 3 tables.




> Then you have to find time to turn ring the order up to give them the check which takes several minutes using the touchscreen computer. All while two tables are waving glasses for refills, one's food is up, one wants dessert, and you just got sat a new table that you've got to take silverware and get their drink order. Anyone who think all waitstaff does is take their order and bring them food has no clue what actually goes on in a restaurant. And I absolutely LOVED that job. Good exercise and decent money for a single mom (no welfare) who was also going to college at the same time.


All you said was just that, take your order, bring your food, refills, and cash register/computer. Just more frequent and hectic. WOW, I didn't imagine you had to place utensils on the table, that's SLAVERY!




> Currently I work 2 jobs and 1 of them is working minimum wage ($7.70/hr) at Wendy's. I bust my ass at that job too. I get pissed off because I end up doing twice the work of people half my age because they're all a bunch of lazy entitled little snots who are compelled to text every 5 seconds... and I still get paid exactly the same as them.


That's bad management, but don't bust your ass if you think you can get away with it.




> There are no raises because our store is a small low profit store. Become a shift manager and you get a whopping $.70 an hour more. I was a manger until I realized how absolutely worthless that was.


So you live and learn. Sounds like you can perfectly understand why you're not given a raise, but you don't when your customers are "low profit consumers".




> There have been people who've lost their jobs in the steel industry and the coal mines who've come in to work at Wendy's and quit within a few weeks because they couldn't hack it. It wasn't that it was beneath them, they just couldn't keep up and remember the list of 20some things that were their responsibilities. And honestly, it really is sucky thankless job.


But you get a guaranteed pay, that's the tradeoff, and the pay is only as good as t he market allows.

----------


## LBennett76

Maybe you don't mind waiting 15 minutes for a waitress to get to you, but most people want you at their table within one minute to get their drink order. If you're not there in 5, they'll either go complain or they'll get up and leave. And silverware... yeah you gotta go back in the back and pester the dishwasher to collect it and run it through. Half the time, you have to separate it and put it through yourself and then rack it up separating the spoons, knives, and forks, then take it to the front and put it in the bins, and then wrap it all while at the same time 2 new tables were just sat, foods up for 2 tables, one wants dessert and another wants a check. Then you go to get the drink order, come back to find there's no glasses, so then you gotta go back make sure they've been run through the dishwasher and then carry the 30lb container to the front. In that time, one of your tables is pissed because they're food is STILL sitting in the window and the other's dessert order is up. It's not this lazy slacker kind of job that you think it is. NO ONE, even homeless people would or could do it for $3/hr. And if you want some toothless alcoholic with hepatitis serving your food, good luck.

Besides I think waiting tables is much more a free market principle. Instead of a guaranteed government mandated minimum wage, you get what you earn. You do a good job, you get paid more. And you also take the risk of getting stiffed. All part of the job.

I have to wonder though how much of other people's spit (or other gross thing) you've eaten because there are some nasty servers out there. If you're a known non-tipper, there are those who will stoop to that.

----------


## onlyrp

> Maybe you don't mind waiting 15 minutes for a waitress to get to you, but most people want you at their table within one minute to get their drink order. If you're not there in 5, they'll either go complain or they'll get up and leave. And silverware... yeah you gotta go back in the back and pester the dishwasher to collect it and run it through. Half the time, you have to separate it and put it through yourself and then rack it up separating the spoons, knives, and forks, then take it to the front and put it in the bins, and then wrap it all while at the same time 2 new tables were just sat, foods up for 2 tables, one wants dessert and another wants a check. Then you go to get the drink order, come back to find there's no glasses, so then you gotta go back make sure they've been run through the dishwasher and then carry the 30lb container to the front. In that time, one of your tables is pissed because they're food is STILL sitting in the window and the other's dessert order is up. It's not this lazy slacker kind of job that you think it is. NO ONE, even homeless people would or could do it for $3/hr. And if you want some toothless alcoholic with hepatitis serving your food, good luck.
> 
> Besides I think waiting tables is much more a free market principle. Instead of a guaranteed government mandated minimum wage, you get what you earn. You do a good job, you get paid more. And you also take the risk of getting stiffed. All part of the job.
> 
> I have to wonder though how much of other people's spit (or other gross thing) you've eaten because there are some nasty servers out there. If you're a known non-tipper, there are those who will stoop to that.


5 minutes is fine with me, if they think that's too much, I wouldn't go there again, I wouldn't quite get up and leave. As for utensils, the fact your establishment can't afford or isn't willing to have them prepared ahead of the day, that you'd even have such problems, says a lot about their cost vs benefit analytical ability. I never said it's lazy slacker, but labor does not equal value either. Like you said, you're only paid $3 an hour, so what's wrong with having another person split your work? Are you afraid you'd not make enough tips?

I've not gotten sick before, so whatever I eaten hasn't hurt me yet.

----------


## tttppp

> They've never seen how hard I worked then. When you're working 6 tables at once and doing all the stuff for them (drinks, salad, bread, soup, order taking, food bringing, refills) as well as your behind the counter duties (stocking glasses, wrapping silverware, filling salad cases, stocking everything else) and then bussing and cleaning your own tables, it would get HECTIC. Then you have to find time to turn ring the order up to give them the check which takes several minutes using the touchscreen computer. All while two tables are waving glasses for refills, one's food is up, one wants dessert, and you just got sat a new table that you've got to take silverware and get their drink order. Anyone who think all waitstaff does is take their order and bring them food has no clue what actually goes on in a restaurant. And I absolutely LOVED that job. Good exercise and decent money for a single mom (no welfare) who was also going to college at the same time.
> Currently I work 2 jobs and 1 of them is working minimum wage ($7.70/hr) at Wendy's. I bust my ass at that job too. I get pissed off because I end up doing twice the work of people half my age because they're all a bunch of lazy entitled little snots who are compelled to text every 5 seconds... and I still get paid exactly the same as them. There are no raises because our store is a small low profit store. Become a shift manager and you get a whopping $.70 an hour more. I was a manger until I realized how absolutely worthless that was.
> There have been people who've lost their jobs in the steel industry and the coal mines who've come in to work at Wendy's and quit within a few weeks because they couldn't hack it. It wasn't that it was beneath them, they just couldn't keep up and remember the list of 20some things that were their responsibilities. And honestly, it really is sucky thankless job.


I never said waiters don't work hard. I just said I haven't seen a waiter better than the staff I used to run. I'm not bashing waiters, I'm bashing the managers of the restaurants for not managing their wait staff properly. You don't need a system of tips to manage your wait staff. Tips don't manage waiters, the restaurant owners do.

----------


## tttppp

> Maybe you don't mind waiting 15 minutes for a waitress to get to you, but most people want you at their table within one minute to get their drink order. If you're not there in 5, they'll either go complain or they'll get up and leave. And silverware... yeah you gotta go back in the back and pester the dishwasher to collect it and run it through. Half the time, you have to separate it and put it through yourself and then rack it up separating the spoons, knives, and forks, then take it to the front and put it in the bins, and then wrap it all while at the same time 2 new tables were just sat, foods up for 2 tables, one wants dessert and another wants a check. Then you go to get the drink order, come back to find there's no glasses, so then you gotta go back make sure they've been run through the dishwasher and then carry the 30lb container to the front. In that time, one of your tables is pissed because they're food is STILL sitting in the window and the other's dessert order is up. It's not this lazy slacker kind of job that you think it is. NO ONE, even homeless people would or could do it for $3/hr. And if you want some toothless alcoholic with hepatitis serving your food, good luck.
> 
> Besides I think waiting tables is much more a free market principle. Instead of a guaranteed government mandated minimum wage, you get what you earn. You do a good job, you get paid more. And you also take the risk of getting stiffed. All part of the job.
> 
> I have to wonder though how much of other people's spit (or other gross thing) you've eaten because there are some nasty servers out there. If you're a known non-tipper, there are those who will stoop to that.


Why don't the restaurant managers just pay you what your worth? If customers come in just to see you, then you should have enough value to demand a higher wage. A good manager would pay his high performing employees better.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I never said it's lazy slacker, but labor does not equal value either.


I would qualify that with "labor does not _necessarily_ equate to value". If you value it, and freely pay for it as such, then it does have value, or it wouldn't be paid. 




> Like you said, you're only paid $3 an hour, so what's wrong with having another person split your work? Are you afraid you'd not make enough tips?


Not "afraid that", so much as "fully aware that".  Economic reality, not emotion.  That IS where the free market kicks in, in a way that no restaurant sandbox market owner can control. It also disproves anyone's notion that servers are somehow being "fully paid" at $3 at hour.  

At $3 an hour, you can afford LOTS of staff.  Hell, $12 an hour, and I can have four people slaving away for me? Why not PACK the restaurant full of such help? Just surround every table with willing servants, and spoil your customers.  The service would be both cheap and off the hook!

*The answer:* They couldn't attract help at $3 an hour without those tipping opportunities.  In fact, try to open a "NO TIPPING" restaurant, where tipping is politely discouraged as being against restaurant policy.  Assure your customers that your help staff is already "fully paid".   Now try to hire a single server at that price.  And good luck with that, as you'll get no takers - at least not a single one worth a damn.  It's self-correcting and already works that way anyway, with restaurants that over-staff their servers.  A server who could have waited on five tables now has only one, and leaves, because the reality of the numbers dictates that it is not economically feasible to stay.

----------


## onlyrp

> I would qualify that with "labor does not _necessarily_ equate to value". If you value it, and freely pay for it as such, then it does have value, or it wouldn't be paid. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not "afraid that", so much as "fully aware that".  Economic reality, not emotion.  That IS where the free market kicks in, in a way that no restaurant sandbox market owner can control. It also disproves anyone's notion that servers are somehow being "fully paid" at $3 at hour.  
> 
> At $3 an hour, you can afford LOTS of staff.  Hell, $12 an hour, and I can have four people slaving away for me? Why not PACK the restaurant full of such help? Just surround every table with willing servants, and spoil your customers.  The service would be both cheap and off the hook!
> 
> *The answer:* They couldn't attract help at $3 an hour without those tipping opportunities.  In fact, try to open a "NO TIPPING" restaurant, where tipping is politely discouraged as being against restaurant policy.  Assure your customers that your help staff is already "fully paid".   Now try to hire a single server at that price.  And good luck with that, as you'll get no takers - at least not a single one worth a damn.  It's self-correcting and already works that way anyway, with restaurants that over-staff their servers.  A server who could have waited on five tables now has only one, and leaves, because the reality of the numbers dictates that it is not economically feasible to stay.


Yes, it's being aware, and the fact anybody knows that, says it all. That they have just enough work to make it worth their time, or else they'd not have enough tips, or they'd not do their job the way they do, which is their choice, whatever the alternative may be. I'm sure my message won't dent enough people, so why waste my money? If I hurt somebody enough that they quit, good. If I don't, I save my money anyway, that's the advantage of having the dollar in your hand. One thing the waiter/waitress can't deny, is that they don't have better options, and nobody is forcing them to work where they do.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> That they have just enough work to make it worth their time, or else they'd not have enough tips, or they'd not do their job the way they do, which is their choice, whatever the alternative may be. I'm sure my message won't dent enough people, so why waste my money?


Sure, and choice is a two-way street.  If you're identified as a cheap skate - they guy who shows up to the party for the freebies - it makes complete sense if they give you standard or substandard service.  That isn't determined only at the end, as many suppose.  It comes out in other ways. Servers aren't stupid. The good ones can read people quite well, and can sense how they are being treated, as human beings, versus how that is likely to translate into tips.   




> If I hurt somebody enough that they quit, good. If I don't, I save my money anyway...


You were never paying that money anyway, and like I said, if that's telegraphed, and you're a known stiffer, you have choices, they have choices. Everybody has choices.  

I typically get amazing service at restaurants, but it's not because of the tips.  It goes beyond that, because I treat servers with matter-of-fact kindness, dignity and respect (things that don't cost a thing). That's no guarantee for them that I'm a tipper, but it's a probability to them based on their experience. And even if I'm not, at the very least I'm not a tight-fisted $#@! who isn't enjoyable to serve _at any price_. 




> ...that's the advantage of having the dollar in your hand. One thing the waiter/waitress can't deny, is that they don't have better options, and nobody is forcing them to work where they do.


That "dollar in hand" advantage is an illusion that only carries so far.  One thing I've observed in life - it is far more costly in the long run to be an $#@!; especially when esteeming others (e.g., "you don't have better options anyway, and nobody is forcing you, but I still expect you to jump for the plum I never dangled, bitch.").  

Some have enough dollars in hand to make up the difference (a difference they rarely experience or notice by contrast). There are people who reckon everything by money costs alone, and many who believe they have "bought" the right to be an $#@! to certain others. And it's true.  In many cases they have done just that. That does not mean, however, that it does not come at a cost - only that the $#@! can afford it.  

You think you've saved a buck by not tipping, and you're right. But generally, in the long run, you get exactly what you paid for - and expected - in a misery loves company sort of way.  You don't care if the server quits her job, and the server doesn't care if you dry up and blow away.  It all evens out in the long run, and the service itself is not necessarily fungible, one to the next.  The same person waiting on you may a completely different person, giving completely different service, when waiting on me.  I factor that in, knowing that one thing scarcer than money is life itself - the time we spend on Earth.  You walk out with a dollar in hand, food in your gut, and a server who hopes you never come back (and in many cases, an owner who also doesn't care).  I walk out as I walked in.  Happy.  And they're always happy to see me return, and it's not just because I tip.

----------


## Aden

Hey guys, I have not read this thread since the day I made it.  I am too busy in IRL to go over this right now.  So to all the people who PMd me asking questions and what not, I might address them next week when the schedule cools down.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Yes, I do believe their service is worthless, at least, worthless above what they are already paid and nothing I can't stand up and do myself. Write my order on a piece of paper? I can do it. Go pick up my order from the kitchen? No problem, it's my meal, I'll gladly do it for free too.






57 seconds in.

----------


## Indy Vidual

> ...so that I can adopt it and save more money myself.


You mentioned Whole foods and their prices are _almost criminal._ Some of the Indy grocery stores (ie. Spanish, "European", etc), used to be _"just plain cheap"_, but many of them are adding organic sections now, and even 'natural' meats.

----------


## LBennett76

Sure, nobody is forcing them to work there. But keep in mind, if they weren't there, nobody would be taking your order and getting your food, etc. The establishments simply wouldn't exist.
And if the manager was paying me the $17/hr I was making, he wouldn't be able to cover the cost of what I and the 20 other waitresses who worked there were worth.
Oh, and the silverware thing. That is one of the jobs of the waitress. Always has been. There is no position in the store created to do that and nobody else in any position would do it. Who wants to stand around waiting for silverware to wrap (since there is a finite amount and it is washed multiple times all day long and rewrapped)? No manager in their right mind would pay for that when the $3/hr person can do it in their duties.

----------


## onlyrp

> Sure, nobody is forcing them to work there. *But keep in mind, if they weren't there, nobody would be taking your order and getting your food, etc. The establishments simply wouldn't exist.*


I can live with that, can they? Look around you and ask if there's more people who need low paying jobs or more people who need waiters. 




> And if the manager was paying me the $17/hr I was making, he wouldn't be able to cover the cost of what I and the 20 other waitresses who worked there were worth.


Or he can simply hire more $3/hr people and the tips would add up to be less per person. There's quite a difference between $3 to $17. As far as "making the cost", if the consumer pays it anyway, wouldn't it just be passed on in form of raising price of each order?





> Oh, and the silverware thing. That is one of the jobs of the waitress. Always has been. There is no position in the store created to do that and nobody else in any position would do it. Who wants to stand around waiting for silverware to wrap (since there is a finite amount and it is washed multiple times all day long and rewrapped)? No manager in their right mind would pay for that when the $3/hr person can do it in their duties.


I want to do that, and I'll gladly do it for $3 an hour if it was guaranteed 8 hours a day (if it were legal too). I'm not homeless or diseased, I'm not particularly poor or needy either, so save those insults. You're right, why should the manager do otherwise if somebody like you would it as part of their job? Sounds like you fully understand the power of the man with the buck (manager) but dislike it when the other guy (customer) wants to exercise it. You are perfectly comfortable telling me "I bust my ass, look at all the things I do" and defending the manager's decision to use you for cheap.

----------


## onlyrp

> Hey guys, I have not read this thread since the day I made it.  I am too busy in IRL to go over this right now.  So to all the people who PMd me asking questions and what not, I might address them next week when the schedule cools down.


Good to see you back, take care and hope you have time to respond to my messages.

----------


## LBennett76

In the end, then manager can't do jack $#@! because he/she doesn't determine wages. Corporate headquartes does. He has zero control over how much anyone makes. Only privately owned food service establishments can set wages. Individual Bob Evans stores cannot. They can give minute raises, but that's it.
And no one would work for $3/hr less taxes. It wouldn't even pay rent/utilities. You might get a couple tanks of gas and some food out of the deal, but that's no use if you don't have a home (which you can't get hired if you don't have). So you're either independently wealthy and don't need the money to pay any bills whatsoever or you're bad at math. Not sure which. lol

----------


## tttppp

> In the end, then manager can't do jack $#@! because he/she doesn't determine wages. Corporate headquartes does. He has zero control over how much anyone makes. Only privately owned food service establishments can set wages. Individual Bob Evans stores cannot. They can give minute raises, but that's it.
> And no one would work for $3/hr less taxes. It wouldn't even pay rent/utilities. You might get a couple tanks of gas and some food out of the deal, but that's no use if you don't have a home (which you can't get hired if you don't have). So you're either independently wealthy and don't need the money to pay any bills whatsoever or you're bad at math. Not sure which. lol


If tips were removed, waiters' salaries would be bumped up to minimum wage, not $3. I've been able to get employees to do more than waiters do for just minimum wages. It can be done. 

As far as flexible wages are concerned, we shouldn't shut down everything and place everything on tips just because some large corporations are not capable of giving their employees wage increases. This is actually a good thing. Smaller restaurants would be able to compete better with large corporations because they would be able to give their waiters who perform better higher wages, while the big corporations with their head up their ass would lose better waiters to smaller restaurants. How is that a bad thing? For once a system would favor the smaller and better run companies as opposed to the bigger crappier run companies.

----------


## Danke

//

----------


## onlyrp

> In the end, then manager can't do jack $#@! because he/she doesn't determine wages. Corporate headquartes does. He has zero control over how much anyone makes. Only privately owned food service establishments can set wages. Individual Bob Evans stores cannot. They can give minute raises, but that's it.
> And no one would work for $3/hr less taxes. It wouldn't even pay rent/utilities. You might get a couple tanks of gas and some food out of the deal, but that's no use if you don't have a home (which you can't get hired if you don't have). So you're either independently wealthy and don't need the money to pay any bills whatsoever or you're bad at math. Not sure which. lol


Corporate headquarters does indeed, if there is one, and only within what is legally allowed. When people say "manager" they typically don't make such a distinction, they just assume employers are in the power to do it. I currently don't need additional money to pay bills, I hope that's not a crime in your book, and no, I'm not bad a math, just ask the people in this thread.

----------


## mport1

I'm in a similar boat as the OP.  However, I'm single and have no debts.  I'm able to save a few thousand a year.  I don't know how people with homes, families, etc. can do it.

----------


## Domalais

If you're single and making a 100K a year and you only save a few thousand... you blow my mind.  I can't even imagine what your expenses must be.

----------


## iGGz

[/\]

----------


## onlyrp

> Sooo explain how you are in a similar boat as the OP? Because it seems like you are in a totally different boat.


Yeah, I don't think this guy is complaining about how somebody making $20,000 is better off or even comparable to his lifestyle, but if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it too.

----------


## LBennett76

Well, it must be nice to independently wealthy. No problem with that. But it's no wonder you think people could live off $3/hr... because NO ONE could unless they already had money. You were claiming plenty of people would be willing to work for it. But NO ONE would because no way in hell would it pay the bills. And you mentioned homeless people would work it but homeless people can't get hired. You can't get employment unless you have an address and phone number (and access to showers).
And I would never have waited tables for minimum wage. I drove 1/2 hour to work. I would have just worked at the Wendy's a mile from home instead (which I currently do as one of my two jobs). But I would have never been able to even pay rent. Working full time at minimum wage, a person would make roughly $950/month after taxes. So, they'd still be collecting welfare (which I've always refused). It wouldn't be so bad in a 2-person household, but a single person (especially one with a child) would be pretty darn hard-strapped.
I'm only arguing this point because I think some people have no concept of what being poor is. Like real poor. Not $50k/yr poor, but the people who are making $12k a year even while working full-time. And they can't get more because the entire area they live in is economically depressed and there are no better paying jobs unless you have a degree (which still doesn't help much). Around here the only good jobs are teachers, nurses, and coal mining. And most of them you have to know someone to get in. Hell, even the town cops are paid minimum wage. I got a medical secretary job out of pure luck. I don't even have a degree in it. Mine's in mental health technology which has proven to be absolutely useless. So this isn't a place where you can just "find something better". There is no better unless you move away, and even then there's no promises.

----------


## onlyrp

> Well, it must be nice to independently wealthy. No problem with that. But it's no wonder you think people could live off $3/hr... because NO ONE could unless they already had money. You were claiming plenty of people would be willing to work for it. But NO ONE would because no way in hell would it pay the bills.


You are correct, that currently because we have certain social safety nets such as food stamps, unemployment insurance, welfare, $3/hr is less than not working if you qualify, but not everybody does and some run out.




> And you mentioned homeless people would work it but homeless people can't get hired. You can't get employment unless you have an address and phone number (and access to showers).


according to you they wouldn't be hired because they're all diseased or toothless anyway. 




> And I would never have waited tables for minimum wage. I drove 1/2 hour to work. I would have just worked at the Wendy's a mile from home instead (which I currently do as one of my two jobs).


It doesn't surprise me you'd choose differently had situations been different.




> But I would have never been able to even pay rent. Working full time at minimum wage, a person would make roughly $950/month after taxes. So, they'd still be collecting welfare (which I've always refused). It wouldn't be so bad in a 2-person household, but a single person (especially one with a child) would be pretty darn hard-strapped.


Understood, it would be very hard. I don't wish it on anybody, but I don't pay somebody because they're in need. 




> I'm only arguing this point because I think some people have no concept of what being poor is. Like real poor.


I have some concept because I've seen it, I can't say I've lived it, but I can say I've been very careful to avoid it, or I'd have easily slipped in like some have. I still know people who were recently homeless, most of the time it's their fault, luckily they learned, and were able to get back up.




> Not $50k/yr poor, but the people who are making $12k a year even while working full-time. And they can't get more because the entire area they live in is economically depressed and there are no better paying jobs unless you have a degree (which still doesn't help much).


$50k/yr is not poor at all, anybody who says that's poor is just poor at math and finances. 




> Around here the only good jobs are teachers, nurses, and coal mining. And most of them you have to know someone to get in. Hell, even the town cops are paid minimum wage. I got a medical secretary job out of pure luck. I don't even have a degree in it. Mine's in mental health technology which has proven to be absolutely useless. So this isn't a place where you can just "find something better". There is no better unless you move away, and even then there's no promises.


That's exactly my point, there are no better choices and nobody owes you better choices. So while it sucks to be poor, I don't pay somebody just because they need money or just because I understand what it's like to be poor, that would be charity and sympathy. This further demonstrates the point, that your threat of "If you don't pay these people they'll stop being waiters and you won't have restuarants" isn't a threat to me at all, you've clearly admitted there's more people in need of low paying jobs than there are who need a service such as waiting tables. 

In other words, the market where you are allows people to pay people less. I don't doubt within all possible qualified candidates, you're experienced and do better a job than average or most, but that doesn't mean your work is necessarily worth more than minimum wage, we have to take into consideration other things, such as, if we didn't offer you a waitress job, what alternatives would you have?

----------


## tttppp

> Sure, nobody is forcing them to work there. But keep in mind, if they weren't there, nobody would be taking your order and getting your food, etc. The establishments simply wouldn't exist.
> And if the manager was paying me the $17/hr I was making, he wouldn't be able to cover the cost of what I and the 20 other waitresses who worked there were worth.
> Oh, and the silverware thing. That is one of the jobs of the waitress. Always has been. There is no position in the store created to do that and nobody else in any position would do it. Who wants to stand around waiting for silverware to wrap (since there is a finite amount and it is washed multiple times all day long and rewrapped)? No manager in their right mind would pay for that when the $3/hr person can do it in their duties.


Instead of having customers pay some arbitrary tips, the owners can simply raise the standard prices to cover your salaries.

Sorry to say this, but you guys were overpaid at $17/hr. I've gotten more out of people making just $7/hr.

----------


## onlyrp

> Instead of having customers pay some arbitrary tips, the owners can simply raise the standard prices to cover your salaries.
> 
> Sorry to say this, but you guys were overpaid at $17/hr. I've gotten more out of people making just $7/hr.


This response is not intended to disagree with you, because I am with you, there's no reason the employer can't pick up the tab or find a fair salary that'll make tips irrelevant or unnecessary. 

As for $17/hr, I'm open minded enough to consider, maybe her restaurant WAS especially overcrowded and understaffed, and maybe she WAS doing 2 people's jobs for the base pay of one, and her frequency of turning tables allowed her to earn it. Like I said, there's a long way between $3 to $17. Everybody has a price. There's no reason management can't hire more $3/hr people, or $6/hr people to balance out the time, this might mean less work for her, or less overall tips, but it may also mean she's "busting her ass" less. I don't need to judge or tell people what to do, I know they chose what they did based on what the alternatives are, for their own reasons.

----------


## tttppp

> This response is not intended to disagree with you, because I am with you, there's no reason the employer can't pick up the tab or find a fair salary that'll make tips irrelevant or unnecessary. 
> 
> As for $17/hr, I'm open minded enough to consider, maybe her restaurant WAS especially overcrowded and understaffed, and maybe she WAS doing 2 people's jobs for the base pay of one, and her frequency of turning tables allowed her to earn it. Like I said, there's a long way between $3 to $17. Everybody has a price. There's no reason management can't hire more $3/hr people, or $6/hr people to balance out the time, this might mean less work for her, or less overall tips, but it may also mean she's "busting her ass" less. I don't need to judge or tell people what to do, I know they chose what they did based on what the alternatives are, for their own reasons.


I really don't see why waiters can't just be paid hourly. I don't see what so special about them that they need tips. I've never seen a special performance by a waiter because they are on tips. They've always done the basics....take my order...get my food...get my bill. I've never seen someone really bust their ass for a tip. 

When I purchase something, I just want to pay the purchase price. I don't want to be in some bidding war to get the company's employees to do their job. 

$17/hour is good money for a job that does not require a college education. But you really don't need to pay that much for each waiter. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs that require more responsibility than a waiter. I should have considered being a waiter when I was in college.

----------


## onlyrp

> I really don't see why waiters can't just be paid hourly. I don't see what so special about them that they need tips. I've never seen a special performance by a waiter because they are on tips. They've always done the basics....take my order...get my food...get my bill. I've never seen someone really bust their ass for a tip. 
> 
> When I purchase something, I just want to pay the purchase price. I don't want to be in some bidding war to get the company's employees to do their job. 
> 
> $17/hour is good money for a job that does not require a college education. But you really don't need to pay that much for each waiter. There are plenty of minimum wage jobs that require more responsibility than a waiter. I should have considered being a waiter when I was in college.


agreed, nothing to add

----------


## LBennett76

Not everyone made $17/hr. I did because I was good. I'd clean my own tables when we still had bussers, just so I could get more people sat more quickly. I picked up tables from other people because they were slower/too busy. I didn't mind "busting my ass" because I was making enough money that it was worth it. I made twice what a lot of other servers did. I would not have done it for minimum wage or less. There are far simpler jobs to work at for minimum wage. lol I got what I did because I had a personality and attitude that people liked. I sold myself. Actually I just was myself and it went over well. haha And what I made allowed me to go to college and rent a house for my son and myself. It helped me pay to get to a better place. I wasn't getting child support, so it was all me. Without what I was making I would still be stuck at a dead end. But here I am, a home-owner with 2 jobs within one mile of home, one being in the medical field which is a bigtime foot in the door. I LOVE my job. The Wendy's one that I hate is supplemental. If I didn't have it I could get food stamps, but still no health insurance. So I work it to pay for my high deductible health insurance and medical bills.
It's weird with waiting tables. I loved doing it and was paid well, but I couldn't imagine doing it for a career. But where I worked there are women who've been there for 25-30 years. And you know what. They're still making $3/hr + tips. They've never had a raise. It's kinda wild. 
Question though, what kind of minimum wage jobs have more responsibility than a waiter? I would argue the closing shift at a fast food restaurant is one, because it does, but what else? Was just wondering what kind you were referring to?

----------


## newbitech

Not to belittle the OP because trust me I know what it's like to be belittled.  Seriously though, I would love to make even 20k a year at this point.  I can't get a company to take a shot on me for $#@! because of my CBR.  Pretty much ANY payroll company that is NOT union are filtering candidates by even the most minor CBR.  What does this mean?  I survive through BARTER.  I haven't filed taxes in going on 3 years.  I owe the IRS NO money, and I basically earn NO MONEY.  I have a ballooning student loan debt that started at 8k in 1996.  I was in and out of forbearance as I kept trying to make school work through my career.  Yeah I screwed up on that.  I borrowed 8k and never paid it back.  Now its at closing on on 15k.  WHATEVER...

So yeah, I book no income and I survive.  I have a cell phone.  I don't get any government handouts.  Life is hard.  But I have friends, I have family, I have dogs, etc etc...

OP, really, you don't have it bad.  Neither do the wall street people I recently read about complaining about having their bonuses capped at 140k.  

I don't even have it bad, because guess what?  We learn to adapt.  I qualify for a whopping $200 a month in food assistance.  LMAO.. Thats  less than $7 a day.  

The people in my network that do work, they realize, sometimes painfully that they could just as easy end up where I am at.  All it takes is one time being in the wrong place.  One mistake and all that you are complaining about comes crashing down.  

You look at people on public assistance or whatever you want to call it.  You think they are living it up because they have stuff you don't have.  Or they don't have to work as hard.  Guess what?  Those people simply CANNOT get to where you are at.  EVER.  It's easy for you to think you can get to that point cause you are already there.  Sure you worked hard for what you have.  Everybody does. 

Yes, there are lazy people and people who make stupid decisions.  I could treat you like I have been treated and like I have heard other people be treated.

Why don't you get a better job?  What don't you make better choices?  Why are you being lazy and not working 2 jobs?  and on and on.  Know what?  It doesn't matter.  What matters is, you make what you want of your life and you look at yourself in the mirror at night and know that you are doing the best you can be doing.

What matters is that at the end of the day, you are happy because that is what you choose to be.

You do have choices.  You can be like me and not pay taxes.  You can be like me and live through barter.  You can be like me and not deal with the IRS, student loans, etc etc...

But you know what?  The things you are complaining about are the cost of your lifestyle.  You pay for the privilege to participate in state sanctioned activities.  It might be unfair, no one said it wasn't, but really, are you going to give up what you have for something you think someone else has?  

I feel you OP.  All up and down the income line it's the same exact complaint.  Let me know when you are out on the street living your life happily.  At that point, IMO then you can start criticizing how other people can be so miserable and yet have so much.  Just like you probably would laugh at a person on wall street complaining about how it's not fair that he can't keep his 8 year old in a 32k/year private school.  I laugh at you that you are complaining that you can't eat out, go to concerts, vacation.. etc etc..

I used to do all that stuff.  But you know what?  You can go to a concert and sit in the parking lot.  Try it, you'll love it.  Even when I worked I found that back to back to back to back 3 day weekends was much more refreshing than one long ass 2 week holiday then back to the grind.  You can eat out if you redefine what that means.  Grow some food, raise some chickens, etc etc..  then GO OUT to get them and cook them on a CAMPFIRE.. 

pitch a tent in your backyard.. 

Make your own entertainment.. try going a week with NO POWER and live off of candle light.. You might find it exciting.. 

Bro, we ALL feel the pain.. But trust me, NO ONE is better off than you are right now.. that is the proper attitude because of what is inside your mind, NOT outside your body.

----------


## tttppp

> Not everyone made $17/hr. I did because I was good. I'd clean my own tables when we still had bussers, just so I could get more people sat more quickly. I picked up tables from other people because they were slower/too busy. I didn't mind "busting my ass" because I was making enough money that it was worth it. I made twice what a lot of other servers did. I would not have done it for minimum wage or less. There are far simpler jobs to work at for minimum wage. lol I got what I did because I had a personality and attitude that people liked. I sold myself. Actually I just was myself and it went over well. haha And what I made allowed me to go to college and rent a house for my son and myself. It helped me pay to get to a better place. I wasn't getting child support, so it was all me. Without what I was making I would still be stuck at a dead end. But here I am, a home-owner with 2 jobs within one mile of home, one being in the medical field which is a bigtime foot in the door. I LOVE my job. The Wendy's one that I hate is supplemental. If I didn't have it I could get food stamps, but still no health insurance. So I work it to pay for my high deductible health insurance and medical bills.
> It's weird with waiting tables. I loved doing it and was paid well, but I couldn't imagine doing it for a career. But where I worked there are women who've been there for 25-30 years. And you know what. They're still making $3/hr + tips. They've never had a raise. It's kinda wild. 
> Question though, what kind of minimum wage jobs have more responsibility than a waiter? I would argue the closing shift at a fast food restaurant is one, because it does, but what else? Was just wondering what kind you were referring to?


It really depends on management as to which jobs have more responsibility. I used to work at a movie theater. When I was just at floor staff level, the management didn't hold staff accountable for anything. The employees had no responsibility and the customer service was lousy. When I worked my way up to supervisor then manager all that changed. Every employee had a responsibility and they were too accomplish it nomatter how busy we were. There were no excuses. I didn't make the employee schedule, so some days we would be so completely under staffed that anyone would say it impossible to get anything done. But we still found a way to get everything done. It was days like this where my employees worked significantly harder than any waiter I've seen, and did it for minimum wage.

Its really all about responsibility. If you hold employees accountable they will get the job done. Waving money in their face and begging them to work doesn't change anything.

----------


## pcgame

what did the OP and his wife major in

----------


## onlyrp

> what did the OP and his wife major in


Everybody wants to know.

----------


## pcgame

bump

----------


## MelissaWV

> what did the OP and his wife major in


Wild guess:  Finance

----------


## rpwi

Fun thread 

150k for a student loan to get a 100k is actually a GREAT deal (if you can get it).  You can't take principal repayments into consideration when you calculate this though...have to look at this like an investment.

Take say 5% of the loan a year to calculate interest...that's 7,500 dollars a year.  Unless you're previous job paid more than 100k - 7.5k...that's a terrific deal.  Paying down the principal now is simply an investment choice.  You can refinance into a longer term debt if needed.

As for these nasty comments about whole foods   Nothing wrong with eating organic...in fact you'll be getting tastier food, less health problems and will be reducing the amount of pesticides that get into our groundwater supply.  Now Whole Foods isn't cheap with certain items (like their fish)...but for some items they're great (like bulk ingredients...lentils, oats, that type of stuff).  It's the processed foods and meats that give Whole Foods it's Whole Paycheck reputation.  Plenty of alternatives to cheap organic goods.  I eat mostly organic...but shop primarily from Trader Joes (terrific store), Costco and internet shopping (amazon isn't bad for organic foods).  Whole Foods is still good for specialty items...but I don't get most of my stuff there.

As for living costs...seems the OP is doing a lot of things right.  Maybe paying off more of your debt now...so you have more money to donate to charity might be a good idea for both you and the charity.  Living close to work is so nice...can't fault you for this.  

Didn't see a mention of hidden items like work retirement funds, life insurance, dental, health care...

One of the tricks to frugal living is with auto expenses.  Never, ever buy new.  Cars just lose too much money in depreciation.  Rule I heard is if the engine or transmission doesn't go...it's always cheaper to fix the car.  If you do need another car...lot of great deals from craigslist.com.

For 13 years, I've bought nothing but three used Toyotas for a combined 3500 dollars...and kept them alive with about 2000 worth of maintenance.  Because the cars are so cheap I don't have to pay for collision insurance, nor do I have to pay a lot for sales tax...nor do I do have to pay interest on a loan.  Saves a TON of money and I still have two of the Toyotas working fine.

The tax system certainly does discriminate against people who work in expensive neighborhoods.  Earning 50k in rural South Dakota is sooo much different than earning that in Manhattan where everything is so much more expensive.  Yet for society, it is more effecient for people to be living close together...so government shouldn't punish this.

----------


## onlyrp

> Fun thread 
> 
> 150k for a student loan to get a 100k is actually a GREAT deal (if you can get it).


I couldn't agree more. 

Most people with $50-100k student loans don't make $40k. If making $100K doesn't justify a $150K debt, I don't know what would. Does he expect to make $1M and pay off student debt in one year? 

I wish he'd just come back and tell us some more.

----------

