My relatives make 20k a year, and live better lifestyles than me making 100k
- Thread starter Aden
- Start date
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?
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.
I do go to the store and leave the house occasionally.
200 a month would be a good estimate.
Last edited:
And if you lived on your own, the actual difference in cost is rent + utilities?
Would it be the same if you made $200K year one and nothing for the next 9 years?
Let me check.
NCGOPer_for_Paul
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 707
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 192
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/en...um-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak
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/en...um-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak
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?
Last edited:
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...
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)
Last edited:
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 16,041
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 192
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?
Last edited:
Similar threads
