Quote :

"For me, middle-middle is a family that has enough money to comfortably pay for all the essentials with enough that permits a comfortable nest egg for retirement and college education for their children"

For you, middle-middle is something that the vast majority of people cannot afford (considering the scenario you laid out).

I think this thread is mostly about "How comfortable do you have to be before you should feel bad?"

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

2/18/2011 10:25:31 AM

minus the college education part, I agree with the quote. The problem is that the vast majority of americans who "can't afford" the essentials are simply horrible at managing their money, wasting it on what are technically luxuries, when they should be paying the rent or the power bill.

2/18/2011 11:02:28 AM

yeah, I really don't want to argue any more about tax codes and hypothetical families. At least we all were able to agree that what is middle class is subjective and that no particular income classifies an individual as "rich".

2/18/2011 11:28:55 AM

I'm still interested in talking about it. I want to be clear that when I said that I grounded this in Wake County, I was just pointing out that I've been basing my statements on my experiences in Wake County and that you weren't gonna bust out with some stupid stuff about how your hypothetical family of 6 lives in Manhattan. Now, I see that you still haven't been able to get anyone to agree with you that 250k with four kids isn't anything but upper middle class or that you can't accomplish your requirements comfortably with that kind of money. Perhaps that's why you don't want to talk about it anymore?

By the way, your hypothetical budget is pitiful, which may be what the issue is here. Are you going to be sending your children to daycare perpetually, like they've got serious disabilities or something? Daycare is a temporary expense that morphs into after school care and then goes away entirely. Also, assuming your oldest and youngest are at least 6 years apart, it seems stupid to save $20,000/year for 24 years just to send four kids to college, but hey, it's your prerogative.

So...the most important point: why did you immediately buy a half million dollar house? You're only going to have one kid at first. And then two. And then three. And they will be little, and they will benefit socially from sharing rooms. Once you have three or four children, and they start to get up there in age...that's when you make the move to the bigger house. I mean, good Lord, the biggest monthly bill on the list, your mortgage, is three times too high for a young family. If you're interested in doing the kind of savings that you want to do, then you don't buy everything all at once. If you put off buying the bigger house, you could save tons and tons of extra money each month in the smaller house, and once you did buy the bigger house, you'd have your extra money and your children or most of your children would be nearly out of daycare.

To be clear, living in the smaller house at first isn't some form extreme budgeting that makes a living uncomfortable. It's really just a form of not being totally and completely stupid.

2/19/2011 3:00:53 AM

Quote :

"To be clear, living in the smaller house at first isn't some form extreme budgeting that makes a living uncomfortable. It's really just a form of not being totally and completely stupid. "

I love your attitude that is ok to tell people how to live when they are living on their own money, but its cruel to suggest they make changes when they are living on taxpayers money.

Living in a house that is double your annual income, is not out of wack. Most advisors will tell you to not go over 3xs.

Geppetto states that one's definition of rich or middle class is subjective. You disagree, bc of YOUR experience...which of course is subjective. Just let it die

And then to be critical of him saving for his kids college. what? Oh no, the thought of someone paying their own way... must stop him... haha.

Quote :

"Are you going to be sending your children to daycare perpetually, like they've got serious disabilities or something? Daycare is a temporary expense that morphs into after school care and then goes away entirely."

His budget was for ONE year, not a 20 yr projection bridget. lol.

Geppetto you also didnt factor in the benefits of high speed rail in your area either.

2/19/2011 7:40:25 AM

I'm not telling him how to live. I'm just providing extremely basic advice and insight on how a family of 6 can save all he wants to save and still have plenty of money left over each month. If he chooses to get the big house first thing and only have the $382 left over each month, that's his business...again, his prerogative.

I'm aware that it was a one year budget. I was just pointing out that some of the expenses were only temporary...and then I later explained that those temporary expenses could be easily balanced out by not buying the big house right off the bat. The picture he tried to paint isn't practical.

And my point about the college thing was that I think tuition will not continue to increase forever so, in my opinion, it's silly to plan for that. But, again, that's his business.


I figure I'm gonna have to repeat all these minor points again to somebody else who ignores the major crux of the post: a family of 6 can easily save all that money and live comfortably on 250k. The budget betrays that fact by assuming the immediate purchase of the big house. Upper middle class families do this every day. We all know people personally who do this so ridiculous/unrealistic budgets aren't particularly compelling here.

[Edited on February 19, 2011 at 9:03 AM. Reason : Okay, done.]

2/19/2011 8:57:55 AM

^is the mortgage not temporary too?

250K is a damn fine income. But trying to suggest you know what kind of expenses or debts they SHOULD have is telling them how to live. it simply isnt any of your business unless they start asking you for your help or money. That is unless you assume that you are entitled to some of their money they earned.

2/19/2011 9:49:09 AM

Quote :

"I can claim historical experimentation has shown my philosophy to produce better results than yours (the people of New Zealand live better than the people of Cuba),"

My philosophy is not that of Cuba, any government could use my reasoning. My point here is that the government gets to define ownership, because you can never truly own anything.

Quote :

"I really don't want to argue any more about tax codes and hypothetical families."

Really? Didn't you spend the entire last page making an entire budget in excel for a make believe family?

2/19/2011 11:13:32 AM

^^Yes, a mortgage is temporary, but it typically lasts a whole lot longer than daycare. What's your point anyway?

I solved the big mystery of how to comfortably raise a family of 6 on 250k/year and save all the money he wants to save and have thousands of dollars more a month to do everything else his budget doesn't include. I'm not telling him to do it or that he should do it. I'm just showing him that, yes, it can and is done comfortably all the time.

The fact that it had to go this far is pathetic. This guy feels so persecuted as a potential upper middle class person that he was actually able to convince himself that 250k is not enough to save for retirement and send four kids to college. It's lunacy.

2/19/2011 1:05:24 PM

Quote :

"Now, I see that you still haven't been able to get anyone to agree ...Perhaps that's why you don't want to talk about it anymore?"

Are you reading a different thread than me, or did you just not read the thread at all? There has been significant less agreement in this thread with you than with me.

Quote :

"Are you going to be sending your children to daycare perpetually"

This is a budget for one year of a very possible scenario. Perhaps if a lower middle class individual has trouble meeting day care, health care, and loan demands we should just tell them their budget is laughable because those things aren't permanent. Hell, child raising in general isn't permanent so I suppose we shouldn't worry about if people have kids to feed.

Quote :

"assuming your oldest and youngest are at least 6 years apart"

only 6 years apart? what did you assume, we're irish? come on bridge its a vagina not a clown car. 8 - 10 is reasonable. That being said, you can't contribute to everything immediately. It takes time to build this sort of income and stronger contributions are necessary to make up for lost time. Have you seen the projections of what college will cost 20 years from now? Please investigate and then explain why $20,000/year savings is "stupid".

Quote :

"why did you immediately buy a half million dollar house?"

You make a lot of assumptions that are built on really faulty logic and don't jive with statements you yourself have made. Again, families don't immediately get $250,000 of income. Furthermore, in this scenario there are now 4 children. There was no immediate purchase.

Quote :

"I mean, good Lord, the biggest monthly bill on the list, your mortgage, is three times too high for a young family."

The biggest monthly bill for most people is there mortgage. So the house is 3x too high? So the family of 6 should be in a $180,000 house? I find it interesting you'll defend families of 3 who make 50k a year and are strapped after buying a 250k home and then chastise a family that makes 250k a year for living in anything above a 180k home. It must be freeing to live in a world totally devoid of internal consistency.

Again, why do you act as if this is a 22yo who bought a 550k house right after graduation? We're talking about a family with 4 kids whose ages likely range 9 - 2 and with parents whose ages are in the 42 - 46 range. When do you want them to buy the larger home, when they are sixty and the kids are leaving?

Quote :

"I was just pointing out that some of the expenses were only temporary...and then I later explained that those temporary expenses could be easily balanced out by not buying the big house right off the bat"

90% of expenses are temporary. Again, even kids are temporary. Budgets that are strained due to temporary expenses are still strained. And, again, common sense indicates this home wasn't their starter home nor was it bought "off the bat"

You've lost this argument so hard that you are scrutinizing the minutiae of every detail; so much so, that you've let reason escape you.

Quote :

"convince himself that 250k is not enough to save for retirement and send four kids to college."

i've never stated once that it couldn't be done. I have only stated that in this situation someone isn't rich and they are only middle class based on the things that they can afford. you, on the other hand, continue to pigeon hole yourself and echo that no matter the expenses 250k is rich, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

2/19/2011 9:43:48 PM

Is this turning out like the last thread on this subject, where 20-something single, childless engineers tried to convince us that $75,000 a year was just enough to get by?

2/19/2011 9:58:43 PM

no, it's different

there appears to also be at least one 30-something know-it-all

2/19/2011 10:22:40 PM

Hell, 30-something engineers have to start worrying about health insurance...

...which is covered by their employer, thanks to generous gov't subsidies.

2/19/2011 10:28:33 PM

^^^ that is obviously not the case. That's a nice, comfortable lifestyle...and furthermore, middle class--just like making $35k/year, just like making $250k/year. While eyedrb is being ridiculous with his portrayal of the family with $250k/year and how it takes every dollar they make to live reasonably, some others are being equally ridiculous with (a) their definition of "middle class" as more like "working class", and (b) their portrayal of how tough things are even at that income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

I think that either the Gilbert or Thompson/Hickey models are pretty accurate.

[Edited on February 19, 2011 at 10:39 PM. Reason : ^^ better that than a college kid who doesn't know shit, least of all what he doesn't know.]

[Edited on February 19, 2011 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

2/19/2011 10:36:59 PM

Quote :

"which is covered by their employer, thanks to generous gov't subsidies"

Which subsidy is that Boone?

^and where did I say that Duke?

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 8:55 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2011 8:54:18 AM

In all reality - middle class is just a "stereotype"

If anything the PARAMETERS for what one considers "middle class" are shifting

Twenty years ago, a place like Brier Creek would have been considered "rich" or "wealthy" or whatever you want to call it

Today it is "middle class" to those who live there

Leaving a disproportionate number of those trying to achieve "middle class" status, behind

2/20/2011 2:55:08 PM

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/occupations.png

$250k? Middle class? LOLs...

1936
http://www.roperld.com/economics/graphics/IncDist1d.jpg

1990:

http://gumption.org/1993/memo/landmarks/us_income.gif

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2011 4:01:32 PM

dude...you are inadvertently selling your own argument down the river with those figures.

everyfuckingone knows that $250k/year puts you financially ahead of the vast majority of Americans. That does not remove it from middle class. It is upper middle class. I'll agree that it's toward the top of what can still be considered middle class, but it is still middle class.

more importantly, it is also obvious to even a casual observer that the distribution of income is not bell-shaped. That is, in fact, precisely why $250k/year is middle class. Middle class doesn't mean any sort of middle quartile or quintile or whatever. It seems that you are again confusing "working class" with "middle class". If you look at your income graph from 1993, the mode is about $11,000/year. If you adjust that for inflation, it's about $17,000 in today's dollars. Please tell me that you don't consider that income to be middle class, as it is working class, at best. If you want to define the middle 50% of earners as middle class, the 75th percentile looks to be about $35,500 in 1993, or roughly $54,000 in today's dollars--which would define the upper boundary of "middle class" by that definition. If you define anything above that--say, $55,000/year, as too rich to be middle class, then this discussion is over, because you are a fucking idiot. If not, then I have to wonder at what percentile--if not the 75th--you would define as the upper limit of "middle class"...

Shall we go to the 90th percentile? Adjusted for inflation, I currently make a little more than that. Am I one of the rich? Well, it looks like I'm probably richer than 90% of Americans in terms of income, and probably at least that percentile in terms of net worth. Hopefully in another 4-5 years I'll be up near the 95th percentile. That still won't make me rich. It makes me incrementally better off than a mechanic or teacher making half my salary. I can drive a somewhat nicer car, and have a motorcycle and jet ski, and a slightly above-average house, and take my vacations to places like Vail and Breckenridge, or Peru, or whatevly er instead of Myrtle Beach...and when I go out to eat, I might spend $15-20 on a meal routinely instead of $12 at Applebee's, but none of that is a rich man's lifestyle.

This is why I say that $80k. or $100k, or $250k does not make you removed from the middle class. You still are constrained to a "normal" lifestyle. Especially towards the upper end, you can make extravagant purchases and do extravagant things from time to time, but you still cannot really live an extravagant lifestyle. Furthermore, you are almost certainly still working for a living, and doing so at a "normal" job.

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2011 5:33:08 PM

Quote :

" more importantly, it is also obvious to even a casual observer that the distribution of income is not bell-shaped. That is, in fact, precisely why $250k/year is middle class. "

I don't think this is true. While statisticians will always debate mean/median/mode, 250k puts you nearly at the top 1% of Americans.

Let's say we accept the premise that this is middle class, that is a dire commentary on our economic system, isn't it? When the top 1.4 percentile is still only middle class?

When the top 2% is still only middle class to you, on average, then you are making "upper class" essentially a meaningless term. The top 2% of Americans are definitely "upper class."

But what is the point of all of this? I get the sense that eyedrb is so insistent on defining people making $250k to be part of the often beleaguered "middle class" so that he doesn't feel bad about supporting policies damaging to the true middle class, the 4 out of 5 Americans that make less than $80k/year. The US is basically defined by these people, and Republicans seem to talk about them very little.

2/20/2011 8:45:00 PM

Quote :

"I don't think this is true. While statisticians will always debate mean/median/mode, 250k puts you nearly at the top 1% of Americans. "

The very next thing I said (that you left out of your quotation) was Middle class doesn't mean any sort of middle quartile or quintile or whatever. . In other words, income percentile is not a good way to define "middle class". Being in the top percent or two doesn't make you rich. Shit, did you miss the part where I said that I'm probably at about the 90-92 percentile? Are we willing to call late 20/early 30-something junior military officers "rich"? Fuck, dude, just a few months ago, I was living in a plywood shack and eating meat marked "FOR PRISONER AND MILITARY USE ONLY", served on a cardboard tray. I just got home from work a few minutes ago at 10:30 p.m. on a Sunday night. I turn down my thermostat when I'm not at home, shop around very carefully to get the best deal I can on every purchase, buy store-brand products, do most of my own auto repairs (with discount parts purchased from online wholesalers), etc. I just bought my first TV about a year and a half ago...it was an open-box, Best Buy house-brand unit, purchased on a holiday weekend sale. This is no way for a rich dude like me to live, I tell ya.

Quote :

"Let's say we accept the premise that this is middle class, that is a dire commentary on our economic system, isn't it? When the top 1.4 percentile is still only middle class?"

Actually I think it's a pretty good commentary, in terms of egalitarianism, if that's what you're getting at. I means that only a tiny handful (like, probably a fraction of a percent?) truly live an altogether different lifestyle than "the rest of us."

Quote :

"When the top 2% is still only middle class to you, on average, then you are making "upper class" essentially a meaningless term. The top 2% of Americans are definitely "upper class.""

No. Like I said, $250k/year is getting near the top of what I'd call "middle class", but I'd still call it "upper middle class", based on my own experiences of living both very lower middle class and very upper middle class (by my definitions). My lifestyle really wasn't all that different at a (and I'm guessing on both of these figures) $40k/year household income or a $300k/year household income. I know that sounds crazy, and obviously there were differences, but it wasn't the earth-shattering difference you'd think. Likewise, on my own with my individual income, I think I made $37k/year when I first graduated college, and I think I make something in the low 80s now. It really doesn't feel like all that much difference, to be honest.

Furthermore, if you read that Wiki article, the classes defined by those social scientists pretty much jive with my own experiences and observations.


Again, I keep getting the impression that you (and some others) are lumping in most of the "working class" with the "middle class". Middle class people generally are professionals with above average education, skills, and income--not so much the blue-collar types getting paid by the hour and making $25-35k/year. The upper class live a distinctly different lifestyle, and that's really what I would use to define them rather than some arbitrary income percentile (I mean, if you went that route, would you use the top 5%? Top 2%? Top 1%? Top 0.5%? It's a pointless endeavor to even try to approach it that way.)

Quote :

"I get the sense that eyedrb is so insistent on defining people making $250k to be part of the often beleaguered "middle class" so that he doesn't feel bad about supporting policies damaging to the true middle class"

Yeah, I mean, I'd be hard pressed to define the quarter-million types as "beleaguered", although I do maintain that they are (upper) middle class and still do feel the pain when they get their tits hammered by tax hikes on the "rich". I also would like to point out that "damaging" is different from "less of a hook-up."

Quote :

"The US is basically defined by these people, and Republicans seem to talk about them very little."

Depends on what you mean by "defined by." I would argue that the middle class isn't overwhelming in number like you seem to imply--again, that's mostly the "working class"...and for that matter, I think that this is the group (and maybe some of the lower middle class) that doesn't get a ton of love from the GOP. What the hell more do you want to do for this demographic, though? I mean, nearly 50% of the population pays no income tax, with somewhat more than that paying very little...and there is a very sizable chunk who are strictly consumers--they not only don't pay, they receive. If you don't want to hike taxes on these people, great, but it seems crazy to me to get upset at a lack of pushing for even more good deals to those who are already freeloading or coming pretty close to it.

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2011 11:22:35 PM

On page 1, Gapetto forgot to stop and think about inflation. 1million dollars won't be shit in 40 years.

2/22/2011 12:06:03 AM

Quote :

"The nest-egg myth Nearly half of today's older Americans receive no income from assets such as stocks and savings accounts."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jacoby-aging-boomers-20110220,0,7981606.story

2/22/2011 12:12:19 AM

Does anyone really think the problem with Medicare is that rich old people are fleecing younger generations? Sure, there are people that receive SS that don't need it. There are many more elderly people that absolutely depend on it for survival.

The humanitarian thing to do is to figure out how to phase out Social Security without cutting people off immediately. The worst, least compassionate thing we can do is pretend there isn't a solvency problem and keep an unsustainable program going down the same path that it has been, until one day, the check doesn't buy nearly enough. What do poor old people spend the majority of their money on? Energy, food, and health care.. The monetary policy that has to be adopted in order to fund budget deficits, year after year, is directly responsible for the cost increase of food and energy. "Medical inflation" is, in large part, due to ill-advised subsidies.

2/22/2011 12:37:18 AM

A single payer system would have fixed all of that. Bulk.

2/22/2011 12:52:15 AM

Quote :

"Sure, there are people that receive SS that don't need it"

Goddamn right. It's their money; what difference does it make whether or not they "need it"?


I'd like to explore the option of deficit spending out tits off to pay off all of Social Security's obligations over a period of a few years, and then ending the program completely.

2/22/2011 12:53:52 AM

What new system do you propose for us to take care of the elderly and disabled?

2/22/2011 12:58:28 AM

When you dispense of the idea that there was ever really a "lockbox" or a "trust fund," it's hard to say what money belongs to who. The money that is being taken out of my check every week belongs to me, until the government says it belongs to someone else. If it had actually been a forced savings program, well, I wouldn't support it, but that's not at all what it turned out to be. There is no difference between what is going on now with entitlements and a ponzi scheme, except that you participate in a ponzi scheme voluntarily (though, perhaps not knowingly).

Quote :

"A single payer system would have fixed all of that. Bulk."

It wouldn't have fixed anything. In fact, it certainly would have made the problem worse. The problem we're seeing now with skyrocketing health care costs is a result of risk pooling where there is no reason to pool risk. In the same way that employer sponsored drives up prices because it disassociates "health" with "the cost of maintaining health," a single payer system would be worse.

The UHC programs that have been a success (and by success, I really mean sustainable - a free market solution would entail true success) were implemented in countries that weren't buried under debt. The task of getting from underneath the current entitlement obligations is the crisis - what comes after that is another issue.

Quote :

"It is (obviously) not sustainable as it is. It needs to be restructured."

That means cutting somewhere, which even most Republicans are still not willing to do when it comes to entitlements.


[Edited on February 22, 2011 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2011 1:00:19 AM

Quote :

"Goddamn right. It's their money; what difference does it make whether or not they "need it"? "

Huh?

SS isn't "their" money. It's not a savings plan. They were paying for existing people. And there's no way to pay it off, because obviously as more people are born, that's more people that will some day potentially draw SS.

It is (obviously) not sustainable as it is. It needs to be restructured.

[Edited on February 22, 2011 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2011 1:03:02 AM

^^^Social Security has nothing to do with the disabled, and it isn't the federal government's job to manage people's personal finances so they don't have to be the Wal-Mart greeter and eat cat food when they're 87 years old...

but since we, as a country, would not be willing to say "Whatever dude, you're the fucking moron who didn't see fit to save any money for the last four goddamn decades. Sucks, huh?", I would propose that doing something kinda like the healthcare mandate (except for retirement savings, in an IRA or something) would at least be less offensive and more sensible than Social Security (that's setting the bar low, I know).


^ Technically you are correct, although having to pay into it and then not getting at least that amount of money back out is some major bullshit.

Quote :

"And there's no way to pay it off, because obviously as more people are born, that's more people that will some day potentially draw SS."

No, my entire point was that I'd like to at least see the math and explore the option ceasing all future contributions and paying off all that's currently obligated, even if it involved driving the deficit markedly higher for a few years. At least then there would be no more Social Security, which would, in short order, be a HUGE, fiscal success with long-term benefits. I can't really think of any other non-totally fucked-up way to restructure it. It's a fundamentally absurd program. It seems to me that any sort of "restructuring" is just turd-polishing.

[Edited on February 22, 2011 at 1:04 AM. Reason : ^^^]

[Edited on February 22, 2011 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2011 1:03:43 AM

Social security IS sustainable though. Its worked all this time what is different all of a sudden? I just put a balanced budget on your desk that involves only reducing social security payments to the rich. If population increases, deductions also increase. As long as taxes aren't too low and enough money stays in the system, it will be a continuous loop with a decade of deficit here and there followed by a decade of surplus here and there depending on age distribution in the population. Just because it costs a lot doesn't make it unsustainable.

2/22/2011 1:12:25 AM

Quote :

"Its worked all this time what is different all of a sudden?"

It has "worked" but it is unsustainable, because it's going going to be in massive debt. They are paying out more than they are taking in. It's mind boggling that you haven't heard about this problem... the baby boomers out-number young people paying into the system, which means there's not enough money to pay them all.

The option is to reduce pay outs by either cutting benefits, or cutting who gets the money.

2/22/2011 1:27:07 AM

Quote :

"^ Technically you are correct, although having to pay into it and then not getting at least that amount of money back out is some major bullshit."

It's bullshit to the old people now I guess, but i personally don't expect to receive SS when i get old. SS would essentially be just like a high-ish tax that I pay but that has a single, specific purpose (which i'm overall fine with) at this point.

Quote :

"No, my entire point was that I'd like to at least see the math and explore the option ceasing all future contributions and paying off all that's currently obligated, even if it involved driving the deficit markedly higher for a few years. At least then there would be no more Social Security, which would, in short order, be a HUGE, fiscal success with long-term benefits. I can't really think of any other non-totally fucked-up way to restructure it. It's a fundamentally absurd program. It seems to me that any sort of "restructuring" is just turd-polishing. "

The political problem with doing this is that whoever proposed it would instantly be blasted by the other side as "cutting social security benefits" which would be spun as hating old people. And since the lore is that old people vote in over-representative amounts, this is a hard sell.

I don't think society can function without some assistance to old people who don't have money. We'd have to start off by social engineering people to save more, and when this took hold, we could say "okay, people born after year X don't get SS."

In the meanwhile, we NEED to tell people who don't need SS that they aren't going to get it, even if they're pissed that they were expecting it.

2/22/2011 1:32:15 AM

Quote :

"It has "worked" but it is unsustainable, because it's going going to be in massive debt. They are paying out more than they are taking in. It's mind boggling that you haven't heard about this problem... the baby boomers out-number young people paying into the system, which means there's not enough money to pay them all. The option is to reduce pay outs by either cutting benefits, or cutting who gets the money."

Everyone has heard about this by now but as I insinuated in my last post, the baby boomers will eventually die out so its not a permanent doom. Sure it will take in less than it pays out for a while but that won't last forever. Until then, a tighter budget with higher taxes and SS deductions will do the trick. Some things have to be paid for. Everything isn't going to just pay for itself. This is a vital component of modern society and cannot be abolished. Like I said, I've balanced the budget through 2030 with ease and no major changes to SS.

2/22/2011 1:45:26 AM

Quote :

"Gapetto forgot to stop and think about inflation. 1million dollars won't be shit in 40 years"

Actually, that graph was in response to an individuals request regarding how a 40k/year individual can retire with 1million. In fact, numerous times through out this thread, including this page, I have discussed how 1 million won't be worth anything in 40 years because of inflation. A little reading and thinking before you speak would serve you well.

Quote :

"In the meanwhile, we NEED to tell people who don't need SS that they aren't going to get it, even if they're pissed that they were expecting it."

Who are you to say what someone needs? Maybe you made a lot of money but were really horrible at saving because you relied on SS to meet your needs in the future. Are you willing to penalize this individual for saving but not penalize others? Furthermore, payments for social security are a contract. You pay in because you are supposed to get paid out. Therefore, to take the funds from someone, without giving them something in exchange, is a breach of the contract. If the contract needs to be rewritten, then so be it, but we can find a good many other solutions that the one posed.

Quote :

"I've balanced the budget through 2030 with ease and no major changes to SS."

From what I see you haven't balanced anything. You've suggested ways for us to save money, but you have also suggested ways for us to continue spending money. Either way, don't say you've "balanced" the budget until you show us some specific numbers instead of jumping to conclusions.

Quote :

" Sure it will take in less than it pays out for a while but that won't last forever. Until then, a tighter budget with higher taxes and SS deductions will do the trick"

Meanwhile, as you wait for the population balance, the interest for the loans we took for 30 years of payments places a heavy burden on the country that can't be repaid no matter the alterations. What I also find interesting is that you want people to have more money in retirement so your solution is to tax them more thus hindering their saving for said retirement.

Quote :

" We'd have to start off by social engineering people to save more, and when this took hold, we could say "okay, people born after year X don't get SS.""

Is it fair to say that at this point people know they need to save? How about we cancel benefits for people born after 1990 or 2000 and call it a day.

2/22/2011 8:47:53 AM

Quote :

"From what I see you haven't balanced anything. You've suggested ways for us to save money, but you have also suggested ways for us to continue spending money. Either way, don't say you've "balanced" the budget until you show us some specific numbers instead of jumping to conclusions. "

The specific numbers are detailed in the link i posted op.

I was wrong about you on the inflation thing because I didn't read and you are wrong here for the same reason.

I also suggested ways I would do if i was dictator but would never happen. Things like completely cutting foreign military.

2/22/2011 11:32:16 AM

You mean what you posted in another thread?

Surely you don't consider that a balanced budget, do you? You understand that the categories listed in that nytimes article are complete budgets for a liability and could not be entirely eliminated easily as clicking an X on a box.

2/22/2011 12:03:21 PM

$250k means so many different things based on where you live. $250k in Louisburg, NC goes a heck of a lot further than $250k in Los Angeles, CA. Add kids to the mix and $250k looks very, very different.

3/17/2011 10:52:57 AM

Quote :

"You mean what you posted in another thread? Surely you don't consider that a balanced budget, do you? You understand that the categories listed in that nytimes article are complete budgets for a liability and could not be entirely eliminated easily as clicking an X on a box."

Everything I mentioned would be a lot easier than DOING AWAY WITH SS.

Most of it was raising taxes and simple military reductions.

3/17/2011 11:31:35 AM

^^Living in an expensive city is, itself, a luxury.

3/17/2011 1:45:17 PM

I feel it's really about two things. The measure of financial freedom you have when you're not working and the type of work you do to earn that freedom.

3/19/2011 10:58:15 PM

What's the best way to expand the middle class?


















Change the definition.

3/20/2011 8:40:46 PM

Best way to destroy the middle class? A spendthrift Congress aided by a diabolical Federal Reserve chairman.

3/21/2011 12:09:57 PM

middle class is whoever the politicians pander to

3/21/2011 12:14:57 PM

middle class is any family with either one full time worker or two part time workers throughout the year.

Many Americans do not satisfy this definition.

3/21/2011 12:17:28 PM

Quote :

"^^Living in an expensive city is, itself, a luxury. "

living in an expensive neighborhood is a luxury. All cities, however, need lower income people to do things like collect trash and work in grocery stores.

3/21/2011 12:30:46 PM

People have needs. Cities do not. If the high cost of living means no one is willing to pick up your trash at a low wage, then you will either learn to live without garbage collection or you will pay a high wage. There is no law of economics that says garbage collectors or store clerks must receive low wages.

3/21/2011 5:38:08 PM

there are several economic laws explaining why garbage collectors and grocery store attendants will always make comparatively less than other more skilled workers. they may make more working in NYC or LA than in other regions of the country, but it still amounts to a low standard of living. there's a reason why all cities have areas where apartments and houses are much cheaper than others; the city can't function without them.

3/21/2011 5:55:15 PM

Quote :

"Which subsidy is that Boone?"

A month late:

Quote :

"The exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income is considered a “tax expenditure” or “tax subsidy” because it is an exception to the usual rule that all compensation is counted as taxable income. In fact, the employer tax exclusion is the largest single subsidy in the tax code. [1] According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it reduced federal tax collections by $246 billion in 2007 — $145 billion in income taxes and $101 billion in payroll taxes. [2]"

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2832

MIDDLE CLASS WELFARE QUEENS

3/21/2011 6:30:07 PM

To me middle class is around 60k.

3/21/2011 7:51:54 PM

Quote :

"they may make more working in NYC or LA than in other regions of the country, but it still amounts to a low standard of living."

No one's disputing that

3/22/2011 12:10:54 AM