John McCain why are you doing to me?

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: halik
Pretext:

I can't see myself voting for Obama unless McCain picks up someone idotioc as a VP (Jeb Bush or similar holy roller nut case)

I'm a former wall street analyst and my salary tends to reach up into the levels he wants to tax and I have no sense of social responsibility and don't give a crap about anyone.

Fixed to reflect the assumption that high salary taxation means no vote for Obama.

No sympathy from me for you having a bad campaign for 'your guy'.

Hello hyperbole...

Hello, sounds like hyperbole because you lack perspective. Just like it 'sounds like hyperbole' when you actually discuss, say, the US killing 2 million Vietnamese accurately.

It's a very rational decision my part - Obama will result in some 20K pay cut for me and he simply can't do anything that would make be worth 20K to me (whether it's my benefit or benefit to others)

It's not rational, it's irrationally short-sighted (both in time and the larger view for society).

I don't expect you to agree any more than I expect a soldier to suddenly ask hard questions about the justness of his war while he's in the heat of battle.

You're indoctrinated. You may or may not know that.

And this whole "you're rich, deal with it" is counterproductive at best - I'm not a high net worth individual and this like eliminating ssoc cap will hit me quite a bit. That 6 figure salary comes from 80-100 hour work weeks (basically two jobs), not daddy's money.

You do get some sympathy for me if you're working that much, but of course it's your choice. I might even give you a break on taxes from those who make that in 40 hours.

I'd like to see you prosper for your long hours - and you would under the higher tax rates, just not quite as much.

Notice how your argument is whether it's 'worth 20K to you, not how much you would still be rewarded and not any concern for the society who gives you the money.

I'm reminded of Robert Kennedy in 1968 speaking to an audience of Medical students, as he laid out his plans for attacking poverty.

A student asked him, who is going to pay for all that?

"You are", he said. Good answer. As someone with wealth, the son of one of the wealthiest men in America, he understood the need for those who have more to pay more.

The 'responsible rich' have no problem with that and even fight for it. But there's a whole more anonymous layer below them who fight tooth and nail for every cent for themselves.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I wish more people chose candidates based on rational self interest instead of made up crap.

Self-interest alone, rational or not, is hardly a better reason than "made up crap" to vote for a candidate. What's in my self-interest may very well be detrimental to the nation as a whole. For example, there's lots of federal workers in my area. If candidate A propsed 100% raises to those workers, it would be in their rational self-interest to vote for that candidate, but it likely wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to bear essentially a doubling of the federal payroll, especially now, with our deficits.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: halik

I can't see myself voting for Obama unless McCain picks up someone idotioc as a VP (Jeb Bush or similar holy roller nut case)

I'm a former wall street analyst and my salary tends to reach up into the levels he wants to tax.

Also his support of UAW is something I can't and get over - it is the main reason why Michigan is the winner of the unemployment race.

Well at least thank you for proving this is a rich Vs the ever shrinking middle class battle.

Define middle class for me? I was making 6 figures out of school in NYC and that was not even middle class.

Also both of my parents work/worked for ford... they are upper middle class and echo my sentiment about UAW. The reason why there are no jobs in Michigan is because none of the companies want th deal with UAW antics.

6 figures, even in NYC, is middle class.

My apartment ran me $1200 a mo, there's federal, state and city tax and you need to spend at least another 100 a mo for transportation. The cost of living index in general is redonculous, especially if you have to live in manhattan due to the work hours.

I think people have a skewed idea of what the middle class is, and 6 figures in NYC is certainly comfortably middle class. You seem to be confusing upper middle with middle class. Median income in NYC is $37,000, something you are either doubling or tripling. I am unaware of any place where 2-3 times the median income is not middle class or better.

Anyways though, if voting for McCain is in your economic interest then by all means you should do so. I wish more people chose candidates based on rational self interest instead of made up crap.

It's actually around 45-50K in manhattan and even that is skewed by low-income/low-rent areas like harlem. If you take manhattan from 120th down, I can guarantee you the median income would be a double of that, just because the real estate prices are in the millions there.

Ok well even if I take your idea that it's 45-50k in Manhattan, I am unaware of any place where making double the median income is not middle class. Also, if I moved to La Jolla or Coronado Island and still made what I make now, I wouldn't suddenly no longer be middle class despite the fact that my neighbors were all millionaires.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


I think people have a skewed idea of what the middle class is, and 6 figures in NYC is certainly comfortably middle class. You seem to be confusing upper middle with middle class. Median income in NYC is $37,000, something you are either doubling or tripling. I am unaware of any place where 2-3 times the median income is not middle class or better.

Anyways though, if voting for McCain is in your economic interest then by all means you should do so. I wish more people chose candidates based on rational self interest instead of made up crap.

The problem with that idea is that people have a very difficult time understanding that what may seem like the best interest for one's self financially over the next 4 years is not always what is in the best interest for the country over the following 30 years. In many cases, continuously not doing what is for the best for the country out of economic self interest will end up resulting in not being in your best interests in the long run. Most of the time, doing what is best for country overall results in what is best for you as the individual in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes that involves doing what is best for you economically over the next 4 years. Sometimes it doesn't. It is just very difficult for a lot of people to look past how much money they might be making or losing in the process. The best citizens do what is best for their country.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I wish more people chose candidates based on rational self interest instead of made up crap.

Self-interest alone, rational or not, is hardly a better reason than "made up crap" to vote for a candidate. What's in my self-interest may very well be detrimental to the nation as a whole. For example, there's lots of federal workers in my area. If candidate A propsed 100% raises to those workers, it would be in their rational self-interest to vote for that candidate, but it likely wouldn't be in the nation's best interest to bear essentially a doubling of the federal payroll, especially now, with our deficits.

Of course there are tons of things to take into account when selecting a candidate, but yes self interest is a far better reason to select someone other than 'made up crap'. If that weren't the case then we shouldn't have voting at all. (unless you are trying to argue that the founding fathers were hoping that we would vote based on Paris Hilton references... the penultimate expression of Jacksonian democracy?)

Choosing a candidate based on his stance on tax brackets you inhabit is a much better idea then choosing a candidate based on the fact that he was recently compared to Britney Spears. I can't fathom why you would even be trying to argue this point.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: halik
Pretext:

I can't see myself voting for Obama unless McCain picks up someone idotioc as a VP (Jeb Bush or similar holy roller nut case)

I'm a former wall street analyst and my salary tends to reach up into the levels he wants to tax and I have no sense of social responsibility and don't give a crap about anyone.

Fixed to reflect the assumption that high salary taxation means no vote for Obama.

No sympathy from me for you having a bad campaign for 'your guy'.

Hello hyperbole...

Hello, sounds like hyperbole because you lack perspective. Just like it 'sounds like hyperbole' when you actually discuss, say, the US killing 2 million Vietnamese accurately.

It's a very rational decision my part - Obama will result in some 20K pay cut for me and he simply can't do anything that would make be worth 20K to me (whether it's my benefit or benefit to others)

It's not rational, it's irrationally short-sighted (both in time and the larger view for society).

I don't expect you to agree any more than I expect a soldier to suddenly ask hard questions about the justness of his war while he's in the heat of battle.

You're indoctrinated. You may or may not know that.

And this whole "you're rich, deal with it" is counterproductive at best - I'm not a high net worth individual and this like eliminating ssoc cap will hit me quite a bit. That 6 figure salary comes from 80-100 hour work weeks (basically two jobs), not daddy's money.

You do get some sympathy for me if you're working that much, but of course it's your choice. I might even give you a break on taxes from those who make that in 40 hours.

I'd like to see you prosper for your long hours - and you would under the higher tax rates, just not quite as much.

Notice how your argument is whether it's 'worth 20K to you, not how much you would still be rewarded and not any concern for the society who gives you the money.

I'm reminded of Robert Kennedy in 1968 speaking to an audience of Medical students, as he laid out his plans for attacking poverty.

A student asked him, who is going to pay for all that?

"You are", he said. Good answer. As someone with wealth, the son of one of the wealthiest men in America, he understood the need for those who have more to pay more.

The 'responsible rich' have no problem with that and even fight for it. But there's a whole more anonymous layer below them who fight tooth and nail for every cent for themselves.

You misunderstood the $20K thing - my point is that obama can't accomplish enough good that I would pay $20K for him to do that. That includes benefit to me, benefit to others and the world.


The reason you're willing to vote for him is (I'm guessing) you fall below the line and his fiscal policy will cost you less than $20K or maybe even get money out of it. So your cost to benefit is a lot lower than mine.

<-economist by trade

 

[Tab]

I am actually deeply satisfied with John McCain's campaign and I don't think there's a single thing I do different if I was the guy running it.

but of course I'm a Obama supporter!

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: halik
Pretext:

I can't see myself voting for Obama unless McCain picks up someone idotioc as a VP (Jeb Bush or similar holy roller nut case)

I'm a former wall street analyst and my salary tends to reach up into the levels he wants to tax. Also his support of UAW is something I can't and get over - it is the main reason why Michigan is the winner of the unemployment race.

That being said, whoever is running McCain campaign needs to be canned IMMEDIATELY. All these ads and keywords they're trying to push (a la "flipflopper") are insulting my intelligence. Paris hilton and britney spears? Really? And that latest debacle with inflating tires is just retarded. Besides the fact that handing out tire gauges is childish, THE MEDIA WILL BACKCHECK WHAT HE'S SAYING ... AND HE HAS A FUCKING POINT! You cannot make a diss on something that fucking factually correct!!!


Bah...

There are certain things the government can do that would help unions like the UAW: provide health insurance. Other than that, the UAW needs to modernize.

Why else do you think a lot of car manufacturers moved up there? For the air?

Subsidized health coverage is a possibility, though the demographics of it just don't work. Babyboomers are slowly retiring and that's a huge part of the population (compared to people that are still working)... how will you pay for it?

maybe by taking the money that now goes into th pocket of insurance companies, which we do pay for one way or another, and setting up a single payer system or a non profit system.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: halik

I can't see myself voting for Obama unless McCain picks up someone idotioc as a VP (Jeb Bush or similar holy roller nut case)

I'm a former wall street analyst and my salary tends to reach up into the levels he wants to tax.

Also his support of UAW is something I can't and get over - it is the main reason why Michigan is the winner of the unemployment race.

Well at least thank you for proving this is a rich Vs the ever shrinking middle class battle.

Define middle class for me? I was making 6 figures out of school in NYC and that was not even middle class.

Also both of my parents work/worked for ford... they are upper middle class and echo my sentiment about UAW. The reason why there are no jobs in Michigan is because none of the companies want th deal with UAW antics.

6 figures, even in NYC, is middle class.

My apartment ran me $1200 a mo, there's federal, state and city tax and you need to spend at least another 100 a mo for transportation. The cost of living index in general is redonculous, especially if you have to live in manhattan due to the work hours.

I think people have a skewed idea of what the middle class is, and 6 figures in NYC is certainly comfortably middle class. You seem to be confusing upper middle with middle class. Median income in NYC is $37,000, something you are either doubling or tripling. I am unaware of any place where 2-3 times the median income is not middle class or better.

Anyways though, if voting for McCain is in your economic interest then by all means you should do so. I wish more people chose candidates based on rational self interest instead of made up crap.

It's actually around 45-50K in manhattan and even that is skewed by low-income/low-rent areas like harlem. If you take manhattan from 120th down, I can guarantee you the median income would be a double of that, just because the real estate prices are in the millions there.

Ok well even if I take your idea that it's 45-50k in Manhattan, I am unaware of any place where making double the median income is not middle class. Also, if I moved to La Jolla or Coronado Island and still made what I make now, I wouldn't suddenly no longer be middle class despite the fact that my neighbors were all millionaires.

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: halik
It's actually around 45-50K in manhattan and even that is skewed by low-income/low-rent areas like harlem. If you take manhattan from 120th down, I can guarantee you the median income would be a double of that, just because the real estate prices are in the millions there.

On the second note, It's not *my* economic interest, it's a cost benefit analysis. If he wants $20K from my salary, he needs to accomplish something that will be worth $20K worth of utility to me.... and I have serious doubts that will be the case.

Again, your personal self interests are not always the best interests of this country and ignoring that sort of thing will come back to bite you and the rest of us in the ass eventually. This country cannot function optimally by equally distributing taxes by performing a cost/benefit analysis for each individual. I don't like that is has to work that way any more than you do for the same reasons, but I realize why it must be done and I do know that it is the best for me, the future generations of my family, and this country as a whole "united" nation. You ought to consider you comment of "on an individual level i believe people have the right to do whatever, so long it doesn't encroach on other people's liberties" and apply it to how taxes work in this country. Also realize that your only other realistic option is to pay for what needs to be paid for by borrowing from other countries and increasing our debt which is obviously a lot worse. Everyone seems to want everything, but no one wants to pay for it...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
You don't have to vote for either one of them. You can vote for Barr.

Who says you have to vote for someone who will win?

Sorry but I don't subscribe to Ron Pauleasque nuttery. History has taught us that Laissez Faire policies don't work...

Example?

See great depression.

I consider myself libertarian and on an individual level i believe people have the right to do whatever, so long it doesn't encroach on other people's liberties.

I also have some 4 years of undergrad and 2 years of grad school's worth of economics and public policy education and realize how naive and wrong are some of the policies that Ron Paul folk tries to push.

I would tend to agree, but the way I see it, there's no way that Ron Paul's more controversial (to be polite) propositions, like returning to the gold standard, would be able to get implemented. I think that both McCain and Obama are much more likely to have their more dangerous propositions implemented.

As far as the great depression, the biggest causes were at the individual level and at the governmental level rather than the fault of businesses. Adherence to the gold standard tied the government's hands with regard to which remedies could be pursued, while consumers built their lives through debt financing. There is also a widely-held theory that the government failed to engage in sufficient deficit spending (trying instead to maintain a balanced budget), which prolonged the depression.

The New Deal, and its alphabet soup of remedies that aimed to "tame" the "runaway" big businesses that are often sold as having caused the Great Depression did spectacularly little and it really wasn't until the beginning of deficit spending on WWII that we really came back around.

ZV

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: halik
Pretext:

I can't see myself voting for Obama unless McCain picks up someone idotioc as a VP (Jeb Bush or similar holy roller nut case)

I'm a former wall street analyst and my salary tends to reach up into the levels he wants to tax. Also his support of UAW is something I can't and get over - it is the main reason why Michigan is the winner of the unemployment race.

That being said, whoever is running McCain campaign needs to be canned IMMEDIATELY. All these ads and keywords they're trying to push (a la "flipflopper") are insulting my intelligence. Paris hilton and britney spears? Really? And that latest debacle with inflating tires is just retarded. Besides the fact that handing out tire gauges is childish, THE MEDIA WILL BACKCHECK WHAT HE'S SAYING ... AND HE HAS A FUCKING POINT! You cannot make a diss on something that fucking factually correct!!!


Bah...

There are certain things the government can do that would help unions like the UAW: provide health insurance. Other than that, the UAW needs to modernize.

Why else do you think a lot of car manufacturers moved up there? For the air?

Subsidized health coverage is a possibility, though the demographics of it just don't work. Babyboomers are slowly retiring and that's a huge part of the population (compared to people that are still working)... how will you pay for it?

For reference's sake, when I said "up there" I meant Canada.

Back to your question. It's inevitable that our government will have to put massive pressure on the drugmakers and others to bring costs down. One carrot they could use would be to declare these entities monopolies. Other than that, I'm not really sure. But one thing is clear: healthcare SHOULD be the #1 concern of any government after defense and infrastructure. If we rejig our priorities then I think our focus will lead to better ideas. But the least we can do now is look towards Europe. Instead of stupidly dismissing them as "socialists" maybe there is quite a lot we can learn from their successes and mistakes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary. Ultimately it comes down to residual income - how much money you have left over after all the expenses.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary.

I disagree. 2k a month would be $24,000 of your $100,000k+ salary. Even after factoring in other increased costs of living in that area you still have far far more disposable income than the average person. Still not lower middle class.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary.

I disagree. 2k a month would be $24,000 of your $100,000k+ salary. Even after factoring in other increased costs of living in that area you still have far far more disposable income than the average person. Still not lower middle class.

Then figure that he's probably paying about 30% in taxes. So after just rent and taxes he's left with $46,000 of disposable income. Then take out utilities ($500/month isn't unreasonable). $40,000 of disposable income. Figure that he probably has 10% of gross pay going into a 401(k) plan, so $30,000 of disposable income per year. If he has a car, insurance and payments will be, say, another $500/month. $24,000 of disposable income. Groceries are probably ~$100/week. So $19,000 of disposable income.

Yes, that's doing well, but it's by no means in the class of being "rich".

ZV

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
You don't have to vote for either one of them. You can vote for Barr.

Who says you have to vote for someone who will win?

Sorry but I don't subscribe to Ron Pauleasque nuttery. History has taught us that Laissez Faire policies don't work...

Example?

See great depression.

I consider myself libertarian and on an individual level i believe people have the right to do whatever, so long it doesn't encroach on other people's liberties.

I also have some 4 years of undergrad and 2 years of grad school's worth of economics and public policy education and realize how naive and wrong are some of the policies that Ron Paul folk tries to push.

I would tend to agree, but the way I see it, there's no way that Ron Paul's more controversial (to be polite) propositions, like returning to the gold standard, would be able to get implemented. I think that both McCain and Obama are much more likely to have their more dangerous propositions implemented.

As far as the great depression, the biggest causes were at the individual level and at the governmental level rather than the fault of businesses. Adherence to the gold standard tied the government's hands with regard to which remedies could be pursued, while consumers built their lives through debt financing. There is also a widely-held theory that the government failed to engage in sufficient deficit spending (trying instead to maintain a balanced budget), which prolonged the depression.

The New Deal, and its alphabet soup of remedies that aimed to "tame" the "runaway" big businesses that are often sold as having caused the Great Depression did spectacularly little and it really wasn't until the beginning of deficit spending on WWII that we really came back around.

ZV

Yeah, I'm not sold on gold either, but that is besides the point. My position has been that it is not the Ron Paul destination that we need, but the Ron Paul direction that we need, and quite desperately.

Barr will not win 2008, that's rather obvious. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't vote for him. The Libertarian party needs some recognition. The two major parties need some competition.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary. Ultimately it comes down to residual income - how much money you have left over after all the expenses.

Oh don't give me that crap. If I can move out of my expensive area of the nation to one where my residual income would be much higher then so can you. I have my reasons to stay which include many things such as my job, my kid, family, friends, etc but the bottom line here is that the choice to stay is still my choice just like your choice to stay is your choice. What exactly is forcing you stay in your area that is so bad that only the government reducing your taxes will make a difference?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary.

I disagree. 2k a month would be $24,000 of your $100,000k+ salary. Even after factoring in other increased costs of living in that area you still have far far more disposable income than the average person. Still not lower middle class.

Then figure that he's probably paying about 30% in taxes. So after just rent and taxes he's left with $46,000 of disposable income. Then take out utilities ($500/month isn't unreasonable). $40,000 of disposable income. Figure that he probably has 10% of gross pay going into a 401(k) plan, so $30,000 of disposable income per year. If he has a car, insurance and payments will be, say, another $500/month. $24,000 of disposable income. Groceries are probably ~$100/week. So $19,000 of disposable income.

Yes, that's doing well, but it's by no means in the class of being "rich".

ZV

Crank up the taxes - NY has state and city tax and you cannot take rent out on pretax basis. Groceries in NYC ran me 5-600 a month and transportation is 80/mo for mtra card plus another 100 a mo or so in cab fares.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary. Ultimately it comes down to residual income - how much money you have left over after all the expenses.

Oh don't give me that crap. If I can move out of my expensive area of the nation to one where my residual income would be much higher then so can you. I have my reasons to stay which include many things such as my job, my kid, family, friends, etc but the bottom line here is that the choice to stay is still my choice just like your choice to stay is your choice. What exactly is forcing you stay in your area that is so bad that only the government reducing your taxes will make a difference?

I left already... but if you have a family and both you and your wife have careers in finance, you can only move so far. Go to princeton or westchester like all the other families with ~200K/year gross and see what happens to real estate prices and cost of living...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary. Ultimately it comes down to residual income - how much money you have left over after all the expenses.

Well if I may make a suggestion, don't give a crap about people who don't like what you make. You are playing into the Rich Vs. You Know Who ploy and falling for it. You are working for what you earn and IMO that's enough.

Anyway, back to ON TOPIC-
Skoorb is right. Americans like to see the mud sling, and whoever does it best usually wins. We're a nation that is more interested in who wins American Idol than in what's happening around us. We get precisely what we deserve.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Oh don't give me that crap. If I can move out of my expensive area of the nation to one where my residual income would be much higher then so can you. I have my reasons to stay which include many things such as my job, my kid, family, friends, etc but the bottom line here is that the choice to stay is still my choice just like your choice to stay is your choice. What exactly is forcing you stay in your area that is so bad that only the government reducing your taxes will make a difference?

I left already... but if you have a family and both you and your wife have careers in finance, you can only move so far. Go to princeton or westchester like all the other families with ~200K/year gross and see what happens to real estate prices and cost of living...

A career in finance that makes as much money as you are claiming does not limit you so much to the point where you cannot find a place to live which provides you with a high enough residual income to allow a very comfortable lifestyle. You got it a lot more flexibility than most people yet you are complaining more than some of those who have less.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary.

I disagree. 2k a month would be $24,000 of your $100,000k+ salary. Even after factoring in other increased costs of living in that area you still have far far more disposable income than the average person. Still not lower middle class.

Then figure that he's probably paying about 30% in taxes. So after just rent and taxes he's left with $46,000 of disposable income. Then take out utilities ($500/month isn't unreasonable). $40,000 of disposable income. Figure that he probably has 10% of gross pay going into a 401(k) plan, so $30,000 of disposable income per year. If he has a car, insurance and payments will be, say, another $500/month. $24,000 of disposable income. Groceries are probably ~$100/week. So $19,000 of disposable income.

Yes, that's doing well, but it's by no means in the class of being "rich".

ZV

Crank up the taxes - NY has state and city tax and you cannot take rent out on pretax basis. Groceries in NYC ran me 5-600 a month and transportation is 80/mo for mtra card plus another 100 a mo or so in cab fares.

Solution: Find a cheaper place to live.

That will be 50 bucks

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary.

I disagree. 2k a month would be $24,000 of your $100,000k+ salary. Even after factoring in other increased costs of living in that area you still have far far more disposable income than the average person. Still not lower middle class.

Then figure that he's probably paying about 30% in taxes. So after just rent and taxes he's left with $46,000 of disposable income. Then take out utilities ($500/month isn't unreasonable). $40,000 of disposable income. Figure that he probably has 10% of gross pay going into a 401(k) plan, so $30,000 of disposable income per year. If he has a car, insurance and payments will be, say, another $500/month. $24,000 of disposable income. Groceries are probably ~$100/week. So $19,000 of disposable income.

Yes, that's doing well, but it's by no means in the class of being "rich".

ZV

Sure, but I never said he was rich. His original argument was that he wasn't even middle class despite making 6 figures.

In addition 401(k) is money that he keeps (and in fact is gaining from contributing to). Cars, insurance, and groceries are all things that everyone needs to buy. My only argument was that when you factor in 401(k), cars, insurance, groceries, etc.. etc.. that he will still have far more disposable income then the average person. This makes him comfortably middle class. I don't think this is really arguable.

If you take the median income in the US ($32,000), the average rent cost (about $1000), then factor in taxes, groceries, car payments, etc, you're going to end up with a lot less than $19,000.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Well the idea is that if oyu don't want to live in the ghetto, you will be paying real estate prices based on average income of 250K+
There is a reason why single bedroom apartments run 2K a month in manhattan.

I understand all this, but it doesn't make you any less middle class.

That's my point exactly - when I have no choice by to live in that area, I end up as lower middle class with 6 figure salary.

I disagree. 2k a month would be $24,000 of your $100,000k+ salary. Even after factoring in other increased costs of living in that area you still have far far more disposable income than the average person. Still not lower middle class.

Then figure that he's probably paying about 30% in taxes. So after just rent and taxes he's left with $46,000 of disposable income. Then take out utilities ($500/month isn't unreasonable). $40,000 of disposable income. Figure that he probably has 10% of gross pay going into a 401(k) plan, so $30,000 of disposable income per year. If he has a car, insurance and payments will be, say, another $500/month. $24,000 of disposable income. Groceries are probably ~$100/week. So $19,000 of disposable income.

Yes, that's doing well, but it's by no means in the class of being "rich".

ZV

Sure, but I never said he was rich. His original argument was that he wasn't even middle class despite making 6 figures.

In addition 401(k) is money that he keeps (and in fact is gaining from contributing to). Cars, insurance, and groceries are all things that everyone needs to buy. My only argument was that when you factor in 401(k), cars, insurance, groceries, etc.. etc.. that he will still have far more disposable income then the average person. This makes him comfortably middle class. I don't think this is really arguable.

If you take the median income in the US ($32,000), the average rent cost (about $1000), then factor in taxes, groceries, car payments, etc, you're going to end up with a lot less than $19,000.

Where are you getting average rent cost of 1000?