My relatives make 20k a year, and live better lifestyles than me making 100k

[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.)

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. ;-)

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.)

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. ;-)

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
Mechanical Engineering

To name a few

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.