goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2015, 10:44:57 PM
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
You don't deduct mortgage interest or have a tax-advantaged retirement account or a 529?
-
very boring and whiney piece
-
And it seems like you have a great deal of political clout when you align yourself with wealthy California liberals like you often do
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
You don't deduct mortgage interest or have a tax-advantaged retirement account or a 529?
I do both of those things. But I also bet I'll end up with a higher percentage tax burden than about 98% of the country. I won't get back into the HENRY rant (yet).
-
no
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
You don't deduct mortgage interest or have a tax-advantaged retirement account or a 529?
I do both of those things. But I also bet I'll end up with a higher percentage tax burden than about 98% of the country. I won't get back into the HENRY rant (yet).
What exactly is this rant about, then?
And to answer your question, I'm probably upper middle class for most of the country and middle middle class in the bay area. Have a 529 and a couple retirement accounts but can't afford mortgage deduction or try to restrict training of new doctors or anything.
Still, I feel very fortunate to be in my situation.
-
the rant is about his persecution complex showing
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
#victim
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
You don't deduct mortgage interest or have a tax-advantaged retirement account or a 529?
I do both of those things. But I also bet I'll end up with a higher percentage tax burden than about 98% of the country. I won't get back into the HENRY rant (yet).
What exactly is this rant about, then?
And to answer your question, I'm probably upper middle class for most of the country and middle middle class in the bay area. Have a 529 and a couple retirement accounts but can't afford mortgage deduction or try to restrict training of new doctors or anything.
Still, I feel very fortunate to be in my situation.
It's not a rant about anything per se. I just thought it was a weird article to claim that the upper middle class is the problem. It seems to me that the upper middle class carries a big portion of the tax burden, doesn't consume the entitlements, drives the economy with consumption, and works their butts off at many important highly educated professions.
-
I'm apart of no class, a lone wolf per se, just kicking ass on a daily basis. I get fist mumped by the federal government for my labors and receive essentially zero benefit.
Any dipshit that wants to argue that tax deferred or deductible expenses is giving me a break can go eff themselves. This notion that I'm getting a break from paying the usual 40-50% of my income in taxes is absurd. Nobody should have anywhere near 40% of their income taken from them, that is absolutely outrageous and oppressive.
-
Some day, in one of these pathetic welfare states, the bougie is going to revolt and kill the proletariat, and the world will be a better place.
-
Some day, in one of these pathetic welfare states, the bougie is going to revolt and kill the proletariat, and the world will be a better place.
It's in the bizarro version of the communist manifesto.
-
I'm not good at knowing where the dividing lines between classes are. Is it a hard metric or more of a feel thing?
-
I'm not good at knowing where the dividing lines between classes are. Is it a hard metric or more of a feel thing?
If you go by the data http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States (http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Then I would imagine that nearly everyone on here is upper middle class or upper class by household income.
You are in the top 25% of the U.S. households in income if you make $75,000 in combined income.
It is kind of shocking how easily people convince themselves of their "middle class" status by only comparing themselves to people richer than them.
-
Classes are an illusion, something like 85% of people identify as middle class.
-
This guy doesn't like you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_upper_middle_class_is_ruining_all_that_is_great_about_america.html)
I think I'm "upper middle class" and I'm not sure I agree with his assessment. It seems that I actually pay the HIGHEST tax burden and have very little political power. I don't get the tax breaks or subsidies reserved for the poor or uber rich. So what is this dude complaining about me for? :dunno:
You don't deduct mortgage interest or have a tax-advantaged retirement account or a 529?
I do both of those things. But I also bet I'll end up with a higher percentage tax burden than about 98% of the country. I won't get back into the HENRY rant (yet).
What exactly is this rant about, then?
And to answer your question, I'm probably upper middle class for most of the country and middle middle class in the bay area. Have a 529 and a couple retirement accounts but can't afford mortgage deduction or try to restrict training of new doctors or anything.
Still, I feel very fortunate to be in my situation.
It's not a rant about anything per se. I just thought it was a weird article to claim that the upper middle class is the problem. It seems to me that the upper middle class carries a big portion of the tax burden, doesn't consume the entitlements, drives the economy with consumption, and works their butts off at many important highly educated professions.
Well aren't you quite the martyr.
-
I'm not good at knowing where the dividing lines between classes are. Is it a hard metric or more of a feel thing?
If you go by the data http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States (http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Then I would imagine that nearly everyone on here is upper middle class or upper class by household income.
You are in the top 25% of the U.S. households in income if you make $75,000 in combined income.
It is kind of shocking how easily people convince themselves of their "middle class" status by only comparing themselves to people richer than them.
I don't think it's that shocking, it's just how humans act. At the same time they think they are a lower class than they are, I would guess a majority of people think they work harder than most people.
-
I'm not good at knowing where the dividing lines between classes are. Is it a hard metric or more of a feel thing?
If you go by the data http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States (http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
Then I would imagine that nearly everyone on here is upper middle class or upper class by household income.
You are in the top 25% of the U.S. households in income if you make $75,000 in combined income.
It is kind of shocking how easily people convince themselves of their "middle class" status by only comparing themselves to people richer than them.
I don't think it's that shocking, it's just how humans act. At the same time they think they are a lower class than they are, I would guess a majority of people think they work harder than most people.
Also, I probably underestimated my standing on a straight percentage scale.
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
I am same as you, but people don't have a universal attitude toward money. Not everyone places the same value on a dollar.
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
I am same as you, but people don't have a universal attitude toward money. Not everyone places the same value on a dollar.
Yeah, and I'd expect that most people don't manage money well, either. STILL, I just often get the feeling that people who like to bitch about taxes also like to lie about their income. Could be wrong. Just a feeling.
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
I am same as you, but people don't have a universal attitude toward money. Not everyone places the same value on a dollar.
Yeah, and I'd expect that most people don't manage money well, either. STILL, I just often get the feeling that people who like to bitch about taxes also like to lie about their income. Could be wrong. Just a feeling.
That's an interesting perspective. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are pretty nonchalant about finances - incomes, expenses, taxes etc. but I wonder if it has any connection to your circumstances and responsibilities. If you don't mind sharing, what's your approx age, income and number of kids?
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
yes on first probably not on second part. i think people just like to complain about other people and the upper middle bitchers somehow make themselves feel important when they complain about where their money is going.
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
I am same as you, but people don't have a universal attitude toward money. Not everyone places the same value on a dollar.
Yeah, and I'd expect that most people don't manage money well, either. STILL, I just often get the feeling that people who like to bitch about taxes also like to lie about their income. Could be wrong. Just a feeling.
That's an interesting perspective. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are pretty nonchalant about finances - incomes, expenses, taxes etc. but I wonder if it has any connection to your circumstances and responsibilities. If you don't mind sharing, what's your approx age, income and number of kids?
What in the world? :lol:
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
I am same as you, but people don't have a universal attitude toward money. Not everyone places the same value on a dollar.
Yeah, and I'd expect that most people don't manage money well, either. STILL, I just often get the feeling that people who like to bitch about taxes also like to lie about their income. Could be wrong. Just a feeling.
That's an interesting perspective. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are pretty nonchalant about finances - incomes, expenses, taxes etc. but I wonder if it has any connection to your circumstances and responsibilities. If you don't mind sharing, what's your approx age, income and number of kids?
What in the world? :lol:
I think Chum1 just got A/S/L 'd :lol:
-
like, look at me i'm so important and make so much money that the government needs it to pay for all these poor people who aren't as good as i am. it's so annoying. hey check out my new iphone.
-
I'm not good at knowing where the dividing lines between classes are. Is it a hard metric or more of a feel thing?
People toss "_____ class" as a pretty vague term and it's definitely in the eye of the beholder. I use "upper middle class" to describe HENRYs - people who make a good income and live reasonably comfortably. They own nice homes and relatively new cars. They take nice vacations, but they're still flying coach unless they've racked up miles through work. They still have to live within a budget and they have a lot of expenses, like a mortgage, saving for college, lessons, etc. Theyre not wealthy enough to shelter their income like the truly "rich" can , and they generally pay the highest tax burden by percentage.
-
they generally pay the highest tax burden by percentage.
You keep repeating this, do you have a source?
And sorry about flying coach on your vacation bro. It's hard out there for a HENRY.
-
meanwhile, normal functioning adults don't need the validation/self jerk off and just go about living their lives and pay whatever they are supposed to pay. like i have no idea what my tax rate is. 24%? 36%? don't know and don't care. meanwhile, i'm going to stay at the riu palace americas next week and i absolutely can not find out whether their outdoor "jacuzzi pool" is a hot tub type pool like we would think of in the states or just a small pool with pool temperatures but jets like you commonly see in mexican/carribean resorts and it's bugging the absolute crap out of me. no information on the internet and even calling the resort didn't help. absolutely maddening.
-
Ksuw is obsessed with money, this is def not a new revelation. Meanwhile he seems to be living beyond his means if taxes are such a hardship for him and his 10 kids
-
Ksuw is obsessed with money, this is def not a new revelation. Meanwhile he seems to be living beyond his means if taxes are such a hardship for him and his 10 kids
Yes, if your household income in north of $400k as he implies and you live in the kc metro and are struggling, you are definitely living beyond your means.
-
It really is funny how the primary critique that ksuw offers is that poor people and others he doesn't like feel as though they are owed something but he is always complaining about why things aren't fair and he isn't getting what he deserves.
Why don't you just go out there and make yourself happy? Free will and liberty and what not.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152705046797297
-
OT Sorta: ksuw, I fly first/biz class most of the time and have a vacation booked in May where I will be sitting a 1 year old in a first class seat next to mrs. dave and I's first class seats. I cannot wait to watch the defeated HENRYs walk by to the back of the bus watching my 1 year old get a hot towel handed to him by a stewardess. see the CC thread for more details.
-
normally i wouldn't care but highs are supposed to be mid 70's and every review i read says that the building casts a shadow over the entire pool area starting around 2pm.
-
Rick, I'm going to the Riu Santa Fe in cabo in April. Flying coach, though. :frown:
-
What sucks though is we are about to qualify for the SW companion pass and will have about 200k SW miles to go along with it so I'm going to probably fly shitloads of free SW coach in the next two years :facepalm:
-
you guys know what's kind of funny? i'm flying there on sw coach from mci to cancun w/ miles.
also just found out that there is an actual hot tub at the riu cancun next door and that if you are staying at palace americas you can use the cancun facilities as much as you want but they can't use the palaces. :thumbs:
-
KSU's student loans from the graduate degree he got just accrued another 300$ while I typed this.
-
Geez KSU, you could've not had a 6th child, lived in a smaller older house and drove an older car. Those are all things that could've saved you money.
The majority of the taxes you pay are based on the decisions that YOU make.
Question, if marijuana was legally sold in JOCO and was used to offset property tax deductions, would you be for it?
-
my tax rate (total, not marginal) is ridiculously low. i almost lol @ the govt i'm raping it so bad.
-
Rick, I'm going to the Riu Santa Fe in cabo in April. Flying coach, though. :frown:
Use the money saved flying coach to upgrade to the Riu Palace.
-
Rick, I'm going to the Riu Santa Fe in cabo in April. Flying coach, though. :frown:
Use the money saved flying coach to upgrade to the Riu Palace.
I've heard it's not much of an upgrade. Plus I can barely afford flying coach.
-
I can barely afford flying coach.
it's a shame. if you were rich you'd be able to deduct the upgrade. or if you were poor, you'd get it free. it's just a shame.
-
by rich, i mean if you feel rich, obviously. not rich in the sense of having more money than other people.
-
I can barely afford flying coach.
it's a shame. if you were rich you'd be able to deduct the upgrade. or if you were poor, you'd get it free. it's just a shame.
I'm basically getting crap on by both sides. Worst position to be in.
-
Rick, I'm going to the Riu Santa Fe in cabo in April. Flying coach, though. :frown:
Use the money saved flying coach to upgrade to the Riu Palace.
I've heard it's not much of an upgrade. Plus I can barely afford flying coach.
Depends on reason you're going, but that's probably accurate. I also don't have any idea on cost difference.
-
Rick, I'm going to the Riu Santa Fe in cabo in April. Flying coach, though. :frown:
Use the money saved flying coach to upgrade to the Riu Palace.
I've heard it's not much of an upgrade. Plus I can barely afford flying coach.
Depends on reason you're going, but that's probably accurate. I also don't have any idea on cost difference.
I'm going with kids
-
Rick, I'm going to the Riu Santa Fe in cabo in April. Flying coach, though. :frown:
Use the money saved flying coach to upgrade to the Riu Palace.
I've heard it's not much of an upgrade. Plus I can barely afford flying coach.
Depends on reason you're going, but that's probably accurate. I also don't have any idea on cost difference.
I'm going with kids
:frown:
-
they generally pay the highest tax burden by percentage.
You keep repeating this, do you have a source?
And sorry about flying coach on your vacation bro. It's hard out there for a HENRY.
Sure. Start here for an intro. https://hbr.org/2010/09/tax-plight-of-250000-crowd.html (https://hbr.org/2010/09/tax-plight-of-250000-crowd.html)
Then look at table 1 here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data) The 1-5% are the people the author is complaining about. I was wrong - they pay second highest tax percentage - the richest 1% do in fact pay more. Still, I don't get the authors beef.
And of course this is only looking at FIT, but there's too much state by state variability in other taxes for an apples to apples comparison.
Again though - I'm not complaining about my tax burden in this thread - I'm just wondering why the author thinks we're the problem.
-
k-s-u-Wildcats- how much money does your household make in a year and how many kids do you have?
-
Also what is your approximate age?
-
also, debt. how much debt do you have?
-
they generally pay the highest tax burden by percentage.
You keep repeating this, do you have a source?
And sorry about flying coach on your vacation bro. It's hard out there for a HENRY.
Sure. Start here for an intro. https://hbr.org/2010/09/tax-plight-of-250000-crowd.html (https://hbr.org/2010/09/tax-plight-of-250000-crowd.html)
Then look at table 1 here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data) The 1-5% are the people the author is complaining about. I was wrong - they pay second highest tax percentage - the richest 1% do in fact pay more. Still, I don't get the authors beef.
And of course this is only looking at FIT, but there's too much state by state variability in other taxes for an apples to apples comparison.
Again though - I'm not complaining about my tax burden in this thread - I'm just wondering why the author thinks we're the problem.
Maybe read the article again? I think it's pretty clear what his problem is. You may disagree, but you haven't really provided a good counterpoint. If anything, you've reinforced his arguments.
-
All of you shut up, you look like a bunch of idiots.
The federal income tax system is the least fair thing on earth. It's 1 page of tax rates and five thousand pages of exceptions aimed at very specific groups of people. It's a joke. It's like playing in a fantasy football league where the commissioner keeps "fixing" the rules to help his team, while 3 others guys collude to make a super roster.
-
my tax rate (total, not marginal) is ridiculously low. i almost lol @ the govt i'm raping it so bad.
Same w/ me, I am always telling my bros, "I don't know who pays all these taxes, but it sure isn't me."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
k-s-u-Wildcats- how much money does your household make in a year and how many kids do you have?
AGI of around 190 (haven't done taxes yet), 4 kids, 37. Why do I care? :dunno:
-
that can go quickly, especially if you are paying for daycare and/or private schools. The $6k tax credit is a joke
-
that can go quickly, especially if you are paying for daycare and/or private schools. The $6k tax credit is a joke
It's phases out insanely low, skipper
-
that can go quickly, especially if you are paying for daycare and/or private schools. The $6k tax credit is a joke
Yeah, living within your means really sucks
-
And by living within your means, he means making enough money to support your family and pay 40% of what you earn in taxes so some POS can spend his days drunk jerking off at the public library and absentee comfortably raise four kids.
What a deal
-
His marginal tax rate is like 28% with an effective likely far lower.
And by living within your means, he means making enough money to support your family and pay 40% of what you earn in taxes so some POS can spend his days drunk jerking off at the public library and absentee comfortably raise four kids.
What a deal
40%? Good lord, he isn't even remotely close to that. The max he would pay is 28% if he was completely inept.
-
His marginal tax rate is like 28% with an effective likely far lower. And by living within your means, he means making enough money to support your family and pay 40% of what you earn in taxes so some POS can spend his days drunk jerking off at the public library and absentee comfortably raise four kids.
What a deal
40%? Good lord, he isn't even remotely close to that. The max he would pay is 28% if he was completely inept.
You're only talking FIT. I'll be around 40-45 by the time all the taxes add up.
-
k-s-u-Wildcats- how much money does your household make in a year and how many kids do you have?
AGI of around 190 (haven't done taxes yet), 4 kids, 37. Why do I care? :dunno:
yikes. we are about the same age and unless you are a two income household, i can't imagine how you can't handle your finances without worrying about how much you are taxed. granted i have two less kids and my wife is a stay at home mom so we don't have to worry about childcare for four but still.
-
His marginal tax rate is like 28% with an effective likely far lower. And by living within your means, he means making enough money to support your family and pay 40% of what you earn in taxes so some POS can spend his days drunk jerking off at the public library and absentee comfortably raise four kids.
What a deal
40%? Good lord, he isn't even remotely close to that. The max he would pay is 28% if he was completely inept.
You're only talking FIT. I'll be around 40-45 by the time all the taxes add up.
No you won't
-
His marginal tax rate is like 28% with an effective likely far lower. And by living within your means, he means making enough money to support your family and pay 40% of what you earn in taxes so some POS can spend his days drunk jerking off at the public library and absentee comfortably raise four kids.
What a deal
40%? Good lord, he isn't even remotely close to that. The max he would pay is 28% if he was completely inept.
You're only talking FIT. I'll be around 40-45 by the time all the taxes add up.
No you won't
Yes I will. I was last year. FIT, KSIT, SS/MC, real and personal property, sales, household employer taxes. It all adds up.
-
k-s-u-Wildcats- how much money does your household make in a year and how many kids do you have?
AGI of around 190 (haven't done taxes yet), 4 kids, 37. Why do I care? :dunno:
yikes. we are about the same age and unless you are a two income household, i can't imagine how you can't handle your finances without worrying about how much you are taxed. granted i have two less kids and my wife is a stay at home mom so we don't have to worry about childcare for four but still.
First, I am handling my finances just fine. Second, we are a dual income household.
-
k-s-u-Wildcats- how much money does your household make in a year and how many kids do you have?
AGI of around 190 (haven't done taxes yet), 4 kids, 37. Why do I care? :dunno:
yikes. we are about the same age and unless you are a two income household, i can't imagine how you can't handle your finances without worrying about how much you are taxed. granted i have two less kids and my wife is a stay at home mom so we don't have to worry about childcare for four but still.
First, I am handling my finances just fine. Second, we are a dual income household.
gotcha. figured it probably had to be a dual income household thing. with four kids, my advice would be to size down in terms or your house and transportation. don't feel like you have to compete with the joneses. it's tempting but honestly i think most people in your situation would be happier having less, but also not having to worry about money. also, consider having either your significant other or you stay at home if you can make it work. cut cable, get rid of morning starbucks, etc.
-
His marginal tax rate is like 28% with an effective likely far lower. And by living within your means, he means making enough money to support your family and pay 40% of what you earn in taxes so some POS can spend his days drunk jerking off at the public library and absentee comfortably raise four kids.
What a deal
40%? Good lord, he isn't even remotely close to that. The max he would pay is 28% if he was completely inept.
You're only talking FIT. I'll be around 40-45 by the time all the taxes add up.
No you won't
Yes I will. I was last year. FIT, KSIT, SS/MC, real and personal property, sales, household employer taxes. It all adds up.
How did you make such a large jump from last year's effective rate claim?
My wife and I had a nasty surprise a few years back when we way under withheld. We thought claiming "married" and zero deductions would be sufficient. Wasn't even close. Evidently, the typical withholding formula doesn't work so well for relatively high earning dual income couples. So now we withhold extra in addition to no exemptions, and we get a lot back. I know it's stupid to not use a CPA to better ascertain how much to withhold, but it is nice getting a big chunk of change in the spring you're not counting on.
I would think a big chunk of change in the spring would be no big deal to a high earning couple like you and the Mrs K-S-U.
Our kids, mortgage, the crap ton of taxes we pay, and the student loans we took out to earn those salaries would disagree. We're HENRYs - right in the prime fleecing zone when it comes to taxes. Paid an effective federal rate of 15% and another 5% to the state. Add in FICA, real and personal property taxes, and I'm up to 32%. And that doesn't include sales tax.
-
Rick, maybe his wife earns more and he could stay home with the kids.
-
Pretty sure ksuw has claimed as high as 60 percent before, but I don't want to search for it (lazy and stupid)
-
Well, with FICA and state income tax you're immediately at 13% (20% if SE). If you make $100k you're effective rate is at least 15%. Once you add property, sales, etc. tax it's not hard to get to 40%.
what's insane is that people think 20-30% is okay.
-
KSU, do your kids go to private school?
-
Well, with FICA and state income tax you're immediately at 13% (20% if SE). If you make $100k you're effective rate is at least 15%. Once you add property, sales, etc. tax it's not hard to get to 40%.
It would be insanely irresponsible to spend enough on property tax and sales tax and have it equal 10-15% of your income.
I imagine it would be difficult too, mainly because you'd be spending too much on a house to afford enough sales tax and vice versa.
-
Yes I will. I was last year. FIT, KSIT, SS/MC, real and personal property, sales, household employer taxes. It all adds up.
It's rough out there for those of us who employ household help.
-
Well, with FICA and state income tax you're immediately at 13% (20% if SE). If you make $100k you're effective rate is at least 15%. Once you add property, sales, etc. tax it's not hard to get to 40%.
It would be insanely irresponsible to spend enough on property tax and sales tax and have it equal 10-15% of your income.
I imagine it would be difficult too, mainly because you'd be spending too much on a house to afford enough sales tax and vice versa.
Well I'll be sure to add it all up and let you know, Rusty, just as soon as I do my taxes for the year.
-
KSU, do your kids go to private school?
Hahaha no.
-
Yes I will. I was last year. FIT, KSIT, SS/MC, real and personal property, sales, household employer taxes. It all adds up.
It's rough out there for those of us who employ household help.
A nanny is far more economical than daycare for multiple young kids. It's a PITA, but we pay her legally.
-
KSUW is absolutely terrible at handling money. Has more than enough.
Or is lying about income. I've never, ever known any doctors, pharmacists, actuaries, VPs, etc. who bitch about taxes the way KSUW does. I've only heard it from people who make far less money.
-
I like how the libtards skating around the fact that they think it's just a-okay for someone in the "upper middle class" to pay tens of thousands in dollars in taxes, while some rando whino who has children with reckless abandon recieves tens of thousands of dollars in benefits for no reason other than being born in the usa.
WTF? 30%, 40% it's rough ridin' abusive for the crap benefits we derive from it.
-
Well, with FICA and state income tax you're immediately at 13% (20% if SE). If you make $100k you're effective rate is at least 15%. Once you add property, sales, etc. tax it's not hard to get to 40%.
It would be insanely irresponsible to spend enough on property tax and sales tax and have it equal 10-15% of your income.
Or single or live in a city or self employed (any one of which could easily carry to 40%). What's your angle here? 35% is reasonable for someone making 100k?
The financially responsible aspire to accumulate wealth, not make enough money to buy food and shelter. That's what low income do. The current design of the tax system makes it a challenge for everyone.
-
If you want more money, go make more money. Bitching about taxes won't get you any more money.
-
KSUW is absolutely terrible at handling money. Has more than enough.
Or is lying about income. I've never, ever known any doctors, pharmacists, actuaries, VPs, etc. who bitch about taxes the way KSUW does. I've only heard it from people who make far less money.
Ok. When you grow up I think you'll be a bit more concerned about taxes and finances too. At least I hope so.
-
If you want more money, go make more money. Bitching about taxes won't get you any more money.
Yes, but we should disincentivize making more money by charging a higher tax rate the more you make. Cause those rich slobs can afford it right?
-
When you include taxes on cable tv, internet, cell phones, gasoline, etc it's essentially an effective 100% tax rate
-
There are lots of people who choose to make less money because taxes
-
I like how the libtards skating around the fact that they think it's just a-okay for someone in the "upper middle class" to pay tens of thousands in dollars in taxes, while some rando whino who has children with reckless abandon recieves tens of thousands of dollars in benefits for no reason other than being born in the usa.
WTF? 30%, 40% it's rough ridin' abusive for the crap benefits we derive from it.
This should bother everyone.
-
KSUW is absolutely terrible at handling money. Has more than enough.
Or is lying about income. I've never, ever known any doctors, pharmacists, actuaries, VPs, etc. who bitch about taxes the way KSUW does. I've only heard it from people who make far less money.
his household makes a reasonable amount of money, but he also has four freaking kids and is apparently living so far above his means that both adults have to work. shake my damn head at that irresponsible nonsense. i seriously just don't understand people sometimes.
-
Well, with FICA and state income tax you're immediately at 13% (20% if SE). If you make $100k you're effective rate is at least 15%. Once you add property, sales, etc. tax it's not hard to get to 40%.
It would be insanely irresponsible to spend enough on property tax and sales tax and have it equal 10-15% of your income.
Or single or live in a city or self employed (any one of which could easily carry to 40%). What's your angle here? 35% is reasonable for someone making 100k?
I just don't like liars. He could probably make the point he's trying to make without exaggerating.
The financially responsible aspire to accumulate wealth, not make enough money to buy food and shelter. That's what low income do. The current design of the tax system makes it a challenge for everyone.
:lol:
-
If you want more money, go make more money. Bitching about taxes won't get you any more money.
What if you bitch enough they lower taxes. :eek:
More money, same work. :Woohoo:
-
Always wanting a government handout.
-
Handback
-
I like how the libtards skating around the fact that they think it's just a-okay for someone in the "upper middle class" to pay tens of thousands in dollars in taxes, while some rando whino who has children with reckless abandon recieves tens of thousands of dollars in benefits for no reason other than being born in the usa.
WTF? 30%, 40% it's rough ridin' abusive for the crap benefits we derive from it.
This should bother everyone.
What's the fair tax rate? (maybe separate income and property tax).
-
FICA is probably the most onerous of the things mentioned, but federal income tax rates aren't oppressive in current state.
-
FICA is probably the most onerous of the things mentioned
Because it's regressive?
-
Well, with FICA and state income tax you're immediately at 13% (20% if SE). If you make $100k you're effective rate is at least 15%. Once you add property, sales, etc. tax it's not hard to get to 40%.
It would be insanely irresponsible to spend enough on property tax and sales tax and have it equal 10-15% of your income.
Or single or live in a city or self employed (any one of which could easily carry to 40%). What's your angle here? 35% is reasonable for someone making 100k?
I just don't like liars. He could probably make the point he's trying to make without exaggerating.
You've unequivocally been proven wrong that someone making 190k would not pay 40% in taxes. Hence the, "living above your means" nonsense.
-
You've unequivocally been proven wrong that someone making 190k would not pay 40% in taxes. Hence the, "living above your means" nonsense.
I imagine it's possible for someone single, but not for a married household in Kansas.
-
FICA is probably the most onerous of the things mentioned
Because it's regressive?
Because, of the people who do work, it's an immediate 7.5% pay cut.
-
You've unequivocally been proven wrong that someone making 190k would not pay 40% in taxes. Hence the, "living above your means" nonsense.
I imagine is possible for someone single, but not for a married household in Kansas.
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
If they are SE it's over 42%
-
just take a step back and look at it for what it is. this dumb mother rough rider had four kids and spends so much money that his spouse is forced to work while they pay some stranger to raise their children. 'merica. smdh because if it's not some idiot living off welfare in a double wide, it's morons like this jackass living in some above his means, non descript, joco beige four bedroom stressing out about his tax rate and whether or not he'll get his bonus in time to enroll little madison in dance class. two sides of the same idiot coin as far as i'm concerned.
-
Having 4 kids seems like a very narcissistic thing to do
-
Why is social security mandatory? For 6.6% of my income I get a terrible disability policy (FMV $40 per month) and an even worse annuity (FMV 1% of my income). Seems like this should be optional, OR maybe require everyone to participate in the public plan or buy into a "qualifying plan" and tax anyone who doesn't . . .since that's legal now.
-
You've unequivocally been proven wrong that someone making 190k would not pay 40% in taxes. Hence the, "living above your means" nonsense.
I imagine is possible for someone single, but not for a married household in Kansas.
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
No they aren't.
They don't even get to 35% of AGI
-
You've unequivocally been proven wrong that someone making 190k would not pay 40% in taxes. Hence the, "living above your means" nonsense.
I imagine is possible for someone single, but not for a married household in Kansas.
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
No they aren't.
They don't even get to 35% of AGI
If you ignore fica
-
Why is social security mandatory? For 6.6% of my income I get a terrible disability policy (FMV $40 per month) and an even worse annuity (FMV 1% of my income). Seems like this should be optional, OR maybe require everyone to participate in the public plan or buy into a "qualifying plan" and tax anyone who doesn't . . .since that's legal now.
Yea this is what I was referring to. I'm not even against a compulsory retirement system, just that the current one is grossly negligent in the return on investment it provides.
-
You've unequivocally been proven wrong that someone making 190k would not pay 40% in taxes. Hence the, "living above your means" nonsense.
I imagine is possible for someone single, but not for a married household in Kansas.
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
No they aren't.
They don't even get to 35% of AGI
If you ignore fica
No, including fica.
-
Having four kids in a scenario where you are worried about money seems super irresponsible
-
Having four kids in a scenario where you are worried about money seems super irresponsible
He's not worried about money, he is just angry that some of it goes where he doesn't want it to.
-
Having four kids in a scenario where you are worried about money seems super irresponsible
The type of people that deserve tens of thousands of dollars in government benefits.
-
Farmers?
-
Having four kids in a scenario where you are worried about money seems super irresponsible
He's not worried about money, he is just angry that some of it goes where he doesn't want it to.
More accurately, he is primarily concerned with tax rates at HIS particular income level. Which was mentioned in the piece in the original post.
-
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
If they are SE it's over 42%
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
-
Everyone always confuses marginal with overall and it's aggravating because it's not a difficult thing to understand
-
KSU also only provided AGI, which makes tough to even estimate an effective tax rate.
My AGI in 2013 was about $10,000 less than gross. Actual taxable income was about $25,000 less than AGI.
My effective FIT on AGI last year was 7.1 percent. On gross it's about 6.2 percent.
-
For me, the greater my income has been, the less I've worried about taxes. These days, I just know there's crap that goes into accounts and crap that comes out and I don't pay much attention to any of it. And that always makes me think that people who claim to be upper middle class and talk about taxes are lying about their income.
This. Make more if paying taxes really straps you.
-
k-s-u-Wildcats- how much money does your household make in a year and how many kids do you have?
AGI of around 190 (haven't done taxes yet), 4 kids, 37. Why do I care? :dunno:
If that's it, have wife stay home with kids and save money because she is costing
-
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
If they are SE it's over 42%
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
I'm sorry if I'm off 1-2%, you rough ridin' morons. Michigancat is just butthurt and acting like a baby, and you eff faces are only encouraging him.
-
Lol
-
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
If they are SE it's over 42%
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
I'm sorry if I'm off 1-2%, you rough ridin' morons. Michigancat is just butthurt and acting like a baby, and you eff faces are only encouraging him.
AGI 190,000
Exemptions (6 X 4,000) 24,000
Standard Deduction ( 12,400)
154k taxable income
estimated taxes 31K
31k/190k = 16% effective FIT
And the chances that KSU takes a standard deduction is approximately 0. So my guess is that his effective FIT rate is closer to like 12%
-
Now do if his wife quit her 45k job
-
All this speculation has really been quite amusing. But really the best replies are more the flavor of "quit bitching about paying at least a third if your income in taxes and just 'live within your means.'" How very progressive of you. :lol:
Ironically, I didn't even start this thread to complain about relatively high level of taxation. I was just intrigues by the editorial - which most of you probably didn't bother reading - complaining about the "upper middle class" being the problem.
-
I hate paying the taxes I do ftr but know the only way to bring home more is to grow my business not change the tax code.
-
Ironically, I didn't even start this thread to complain about relatively high level of taxation. I was just intrigues by the editorial - which most of you probably didn't bother reading - complaining about the "upper middle class" being the problem.
Ironically, your first post was both a loose example of one of the author's complaints about your peers while also being confused as to what his complaints were
-
The real question is why KSUW hasn't released his long form birth certificate, college transcripts, student loan paperwork and his full medical records.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING KSUW?
-
The real question is why KSUW hasn't released his long form birth certificate, college transcripts, student loan paperwork and his full medical records.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING KSUW?
All right, honestly? My birth certificate lists my religion as "Muslim" because that's what my dad was, I lied on my college admission applications by claiming I was born in Kenya, and I was kind of a shitty student in undergrad, all of which will be pretty embarrassing if I ever run for prez.
-
The real question is why KSUW hasn't released his long form birth certificate, college transcripts, student loan paperwork and his full medical records.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING KSUW?
All right, honestly? My birth certificate lists my religion as "Muslim" because that's what my dad was, I lied on my college admission applications by claiming I was born in Kenya, and I was kind of a shitty student in undergrad, all of which will be pretty embarrassing if I ever run for prez.
Did you go to Harvard and get picked by a Biglaw?! You'd have a lot less debt
-
In kansas, a married person who makes $190k (in entirely w-2 income) is at 35% before you even take into consideration property and sales tax... and the AMT.
If they are SE it's over 42%
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
I'm sorry if I'm off 1-2%, you rough ridin' morons. Michigancat is just butthurt and acting like a baby, and you eff faces are only encouraging him.
AGI 190,000
Exemptions (6 X 4,000) 24,000
Standard Deduction ( 12,400)
154k taxable income
estimated taxes 31K
31k/190k = 16% effective FIT
And the chances that KSU takes a standard deduction is approximately 0. So my guess is that his effective FIT rate is closer to like 12%
And actually probably lower than that. Hopefully KSU and his wife are maxing out retirement contributions, which is a luxury of having a large income and reduces AGI. Also health insurance premiums are pre-tax money, as is interest on student loans etc.
-
He wouldn't get a student loan interest deduction
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
I suppose it's obvious if you think 28+5+7.5=35.
Didn't realize the 190k was AGI when I was doing my ball parking for married no kids. If it was TI, I'd be close.
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
I suppose it's obvious if you think 28+5+7.5=35.
Didn't realize the 190k was AGI when I was doing my ball parking for married no kids. If it was TI, I'd be close.
He's hauling around the partridge family, that little detail probably didn't help either.
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
I suppose it's obvious if you think 28+5+7.5=35.
Didn't realize the 190k was AGI when I was doing my ball parking for married no kids. If it was TI, I'd be close.
:lol:
even at 190k of taxable income your estimate would be high, even if you were using the taxable income to calculate the effective rate :lol:
-
This thread :lol:
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
I suppose it's obvious if you think 28+5+7.5=35.
Didn't realize the 190k was AGI when I was doing my ball parking for married no kids. If it was TI, I'd be close.
:lol:
even at 190k of taxable income your estimate would be high, even if you were using the taxable income to calculate the effective rate :lol:
HE'D BE CLOSE DAMN IT
-
The best threads happen in the darnedest places.
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
I suppose it's obvious if you think 28+5+7.5=35.
Didn't realize the 190k was AGI when I was doing my ball parking for married no kids. If it was TI, I'd be close.
:lol:
even at 190k of taxable income your estimate would be high, even if you were using the taxable income to calculate the effective rate :lol:
If you think 21.29% isn't even close to 22.5%, I suppose.
-
you're confusing marginal rates with overall rates.
No. JFC, it's so obvious that's not the case.
I ball parked a 22.5% effective tax rate for someone in the 28% tax bracket. Added 5% for state income tax and 7.5% fica, voila 35%.
i mean, i haven't done the calculations, but your numbers are significantly off. so i made the obvious assumption.
I suppose it's obvious if you think 28+5+7.5=35.
Didn't realize the 190k was AGI when I was doing my ball parking for married no kids. If it was TI, I'd be close.
:lol:
even at 190k of taxable income your estimate would be high, even if you were using the taxable income to calculate the effective rate :lol:
If you think 21.29% isn't even close to 22.5%, I suppose.
:lol:
-
The butthurt and desperation from michigancat is quite awkward
-
:lol:
-
Michigancat: how big is your yard?
Rando BBS guy: about 1/3 of an acre
MC: [enraged jealousy] that's impossible!
RBBSG: checked my survey, it's 14,080 sq/ft
MC: I told you you weren't even close [awkward laughter, false sense of vindication, penis becomes innie]
-
This a dax style meltdown omg
-
Lol
-
wowowow
-
This a dax style meltdown omg
Dax doesn't become enraged
-
This a dax style meltdown omg
yes, very embarrassing for fsd. not as embarrassing as k-s-u who has an entire herd of children that will be milking our public school system for the next eighteen years while he complains about having to pay for it through taxes, but still embarrassing.
-
Speaking of herd, here comes the sheep
-
The people really screwed by the tax system are the middle class people with no kids.
-
I will say that this thread shows that if a college graduate doesn't understand how to calculate their effective tax rate, the system is probably too complicated.
-
I have a friend (non-Canadian) who makes between $400 and $500 thousand dollars/year and he thinks taxes are "way to eff'n high." He has actually said that to me on a couple of occasions. Is he not telling me the truth?
The main problems I have with taxes are waste and the entitlement mentality of basically every American (even me!), but I don't think that is what this thread is about.
-
i dont make that kinda scratch but i have to imagine there are legit ways of avoiding a huge tax bill with that kind of income.
-
Since Obama net take home pay down and income flat. Renosweets is buying bargains to get by. I hate the cheap half tissue half steel wool toilet paper the most. With Bush, and even Clinton it was Charmin Nirvana.
-
you should check out cottenelle :love:
-
I have a friend (non-Canadian) who makes between $400 and $500 thousand dollars/year and he thinks taxes are "way to eff'n high." He has actually said that to me on a couple of occasions. Is he not telling me the truth?
If he was bitching about it because he can't make ends meet, then no.
-
I have a friend (non-Canadian) who makes between $400 and $500 thousand dollars/year and he thinks taxes are "way to eff'n high." He has actually said that to me on a couple of occasions. Is he not telling me the truth?
If he was bitching about it because he can't make ends meet, then no.
The ends meet just fine for him. He just thinks its ridiculous how much the government takes.
-
I have a friend (non-Canadian) who makes between $400 and $500 thousand dollars/year and he thinks taxes are "way to eff'n high." He has actually said that to me on a couple of occasions. Is he not telling me the truth?
If he was bitching about it because he can't make ends meet, then no.
The ends meet just fine for him. He just thinks its ridiculous how much the government takes.
does he have four kids that will spend their entire lives in the public school system? if so tell him to shut up and happily take the handout.
-
The people really screwed by the tax system are the middle class people with no kids.
you're goddamn right we are. get off my back, govt.
-
DINK checking in here, really feeling bitter about subsidizing KSUHENRY's 4 children.
-
DINK checking in here, really feeling bitter about subsidising KSUHENRY's 4 children.
DINK ISFJ here, i Feel enraged :curse:
-
Everyone always confuses marginal with overall and it's aggravating because it's not a difficult thing to understand
Just as a little side discussion because it's interesting, I agree that marginal tax rate is pretty worthless. By "overall tax rate" I assume you're referring to "average tax rate" or "effective tax rate", which is the amount of taxes paid divided by your taxable income (which means after deductions). While that's a better number to look at than marginal rate, I think the best number to look at is what I would consider you're "true" rate, which is simply the taxes you paid divided by your gross income.
-
Everyone always confuses marginal with overall and it's aggravating because it's not a difficult thing to understand
Just as a little side discussion because it's interesting, I agree that marginal tax rate is pretty worthless. By "overall tax rate" I assume you're referring to "average tax rate" or "effective tax rate", which is the amount of taxes paid divided by your taxable income (which means after deductions). While that's a better number to look at than marginal rate, I think the best number to look at is what I would consider you're "true" rate, which is simply the taxes you paid divided by your gross income.
I was using overall because I was responding to sys who used overall. I'm assuming he meant effective.
-
Is $190K really upper middle class? Seems like a low number.
-
Is $190K really upper middle class? Seems like a low number.
seems pretty reasonable. It's interesting that being in the top 5% is considered "middle class", but it's a pretty common description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States
-
it's rich. middle class is actually the class in the middle, not just the class both rich and poor people in the united states fantasize they belong to.
-
Everyone always confuses marginal with overall and it's aggravating because it's not a difficult thing to understand
Just as a little side discussion because it's interesting, I agree that marginal tax rate is pretty worthless. By "overall tax rate" I assume you're referring to "average tax rate" or "effective tax rate", which is the amount of taxes paid divided by your taxable income (which means after deductions). While that's a better number to look at than marginal rate, I think the best number to look at is what I would consider you're "true" rate, which is simply the taxes you paid divided by your gross income.
I was using overall because I was responding to sys who used overall. I'm assuming he meant effective.
i just made an assumption as to why fsd's numbers looked so off. if i were to use it more precisely, in my mind ''overall" would be synonymous with how ksuw uses "'true''.
-
it's rich. middle class is actually the class in the middle, not just the class both rich and poor people in the united states fantasize they belong to.
Poor people in the US think they're middle class? I really didn't know this.
-
Poor people in the US think they're middle class? I really didn't know this.
americans are weird.
-
it's rich. middle class is actually the class in the middle, not just the class both rich and poor people in the united states fantasize they belong to.
Poor people in the US think they're middle class? I really didn't know this.
Almost everyone in the US thinks they're middle class.
-
it's rich. middle class is actually the class in the middle, not just the class both rich and poor people in the united states fantasize they belong to.
Again, I was using the term as the author defined it in his (I think, ridiculous) editorial. I would consider myself lower upper class. :cashmoney:
-
I like the discussion of defining classes. I have no idea where the cutoff is on these things. it sounds like the middle class (and it's upper and lower groups) is like 95% of the country which seems stupid. I feel like it should be spread more evenly among all the levels. like 15% lower class. 20% low middle. 30% middle. 20% upper middle. 14% upper. 1% super upper. and that should have to be adjusted for cost of living. there should be a thing you enter stuff about yourself so you know who are your fiscal betters and worse'ers. and there should be a strict cutoff so you know exactly when you enter a new level. like level'ing up in video games.
-
like this
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F51%2FUnited_States_Class_Structure_Comparison%252C1984-2014.jpg&hash=e117d189f95d330952a909a80b5760e07566b68a)
-
I like the discussion of defining classes. I have no idea where the cutoff is on these things. it sounds like the middle class (and it's upper and lower groups) is like 95% of the country which seems stupid. I feel like it should be spread more evenly among all the levels. like 10% lower class. 25% low middle. 25% middle. 25% upper middle. 10% upper. 5% super upper. and that should have to be adjusted for cost of living. there should be a thing you enter stuff about yourself so you know who are your fiscal betters and worse'ers. and there should be a strict cutoff so you know exactly when you enter a new level. like level'ing up in video games.
Social class is not only determined by income by most sociologists, including the late, great KSU prof Richard Coleman. But if we wanted to move in the direction of clarifying simplicity---income distribution is already broken down by quintile.
That gives us 5 categories:
Poor-Lower Middle/Working Class-Middle Class-Upper Middle Class-Rich/Upper Class
(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/49xxx/49440-Land-Table1.png)
But you are always going to run in to obvious problems because of the inequality within these classes. Household income of $250K withe Warren Buffet? So maybe add a class on the top end with a cut off of 1%~ $1 million/yr? But again, this is income, not wealth so we miss out on a lot of what is going on with the lower middle class and middle class with regards to upward mobility and the terrible balance sheets that they would be taking on to pursue higher ed or to be able to raise capital for a small business or the lack of savings in general.
I prefer the quintile system because it is what it is and it at least illustrates how disingenuous the talk of the "middle class" really is.
-
The idea that there should be 4 categories for the rich and one includes $135,000 - $600,000 defined as "upper middle class" is very weird.
-
Why don't these class distinctions more closely follow actual distribution over the population?
-
Why don't these class distinctions more closely follow actual distribution over the population?
That is what the quintiles are composed of.
-
I like the quintiles kk. good job.
-
Social class is not only determined by income by most sociologists, including the late, great KSU prof Richard Coleman.
i think ultimately it has to be based on money, but clearly current income fails to capture the dynamic. as an example, i've been upper middle class (actually rich by any relevant global measure, but my father would fight you if you called him rich) my entire life, based on my parents' income and assets. my own income has been almost irrelevant to my social class for almost that entire span.
you could instead base status on cultural characters, like education or whatever. but i think all/most of those ultimately stem from familial wealth.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F85%2FDistribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States_2012.png%2F800px-Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States_2012.png&hash=dca931d2d2eeda0f44456c28f42b73a12e7310c9)
-
I find the jump at 100-105k interesting. I noticed it on one of K-S-U's links, too.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F85%2FDistribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States_2012.png%2F800px-Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States_2012.png&hash=dca931d2d2eeda0f44456c28f42b73a12e7310c9)
"grater than"? Where you'd get this chart?
-
Yeah, where did that chart come from???
-
I find the jump at 100-105k interesting. I noticed it on one of K-S-U's links, too.
also at 50 and 150. i think it's probably just roundnumberism.
-
Can't copy it over, but check out Table 1 here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0) This is the data on 2012 returns, which appears to be the latest available from the IRS.
In summary, here is the Average FIT Rate by income:
Top 1% (> $435k): 22.8%
2-5% (> $176k): 18.3%
6-10% (> $125k): 13.3%
11-25% (> $73k): 10%
26-50% (> $36k): 7.2%
Poors (< $36k): 3.3%
I wish they had the "true" rate (taxes / gross income) but I'm not sure where I'd find that.
-
Shouldn't geography factor in too? I mean $70K in NYC isn't much but it's a lot in Tupelo, MS.
-
What concerns me more regarding the reduction of middle class income is the costs businesses will pass on to us to pay for complying with the huge volume of regulations being forced on them. It used to be called unfunded mandates, now its progressive action.
-
I think net worth might be a better indicator of economic class. Someone pulling down 200 but spending 190 of it every year isn't really wealthy.
-
What concerns me more regarding the reduction of middle class income is the costs businesses will pass on to us to pay for complying with the huge volume of regulations being forced on them. It used to be called unfunded mandates, now its progressive action.
out of character :blindfold:
this is what colbert's new show will feel like
-
I think net worth might be a better indicator of economic class. Someone pulling down 200 but spending 190 of it every year isn't really wealthy.
Wealth is a separate but important issue.
-
Hey now, I lol'd in this thread, no rage here, friends in EMAW (and other things)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What concerns me more regarding the reduction of middle class income is the costs businesses will pass on to us to pay for complying with the huge volume of regulations being forced on them. It used to be called unfunded mandates, now its progressive action.
not sure if it's a class issue, but i agree. taxes are honest, regulation-imposed costs are not.
-
Social class is not only determined by income by most sociologists, including the late, great KSU prof Richard Coleman.
i think ultimately it has to be based on money, but clearly current income fails to capture the dynamic. as an example, i've been upper middle class (actually rich by any relevant global measure, but my father would fight you if you called him rich) my entire life, based on my parents' income and assets. my own income has been almost irrelevant to my social class for almost that entire span.
you could instead base status on cultural characters, like education or whatever. but i think all/most of those ultimately stem from familial wealth.
So based on how people think about money?
I was raised upper-middle class and my wife was raised lower-middle class. There's a vast difference in the psychology of money between the two despite not being too far apart earnings wise.
-
Can't copy it over, but check out Table 1 here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0) This is the data on 2012 returns, which appears to be the latest available from the IRS.
In summary, here is the Average FIT Rate by income:
Top 1% (> $435k): 22.8%
2-5% (> $176k): 18.3%
6-10% (> $125k): 13.3%
11-25% (> $73k): 10%
26-50% (> $36k): 7.2%
Poors (< $36k): 3.3%
I wish they had the "true" rate (taxes / gross income) but I'm not sure where I'd find that.
yeah, doing that off of AGI is pretty misleading (although it generally seems to be the best data available). I just checked and my pretax deductions lowered my AGI by well over 10%. Maybe it's balanced across income classes, but I'd guess the "upper middle class" receives more benefit from pre-tax deductions than the lower incomes.
-
Social class is not only determined by income by most sociologists, including the late, great KSU prof Richard Coleman.
i think ultimately it has to be based on money, but clearly current income fails to capture the dynamic. as an example, i've been upper middle class (actually rich by any relevant global measure, but my father would fight you if you called him rich) my entire life, based on my parents' income and assets. my own income has been almost irrelevant to my social class for almost that entire span.
you could instead base status on cultural characters, like education or whatever. but i think all/most of those ultimately stem from familial wealth.
So based on how people think about money?
I was raised upper-middle class and my wife was raised lower-middle class. There's a vast difference in the psychology of money between the two despite not being too far apart earnings wise.
You are supposed to marry for money bro, not the other way around.
-
Social class is not only determined by income by most sociologists, including the late, great KSU prof Richard Coleman.
i think ultimately it has to be based on money, but clearly current income fails to capture the dynamic. as an example, i've been upper middle class (actually rich by any relevant global measure, but my father would fight you if you called him rich) my entire life, based on my parents' income and assets. my own income has been almost irrelevant to my social class for almost that entire span.
you could instead base status on cultural characters, like education or whatever. but i think all/most of those ultimately stem from familial wealth.
So based on how people think about money?
I was raised upper-middle class and my wife was raised lower-middle class. There's a vast difference in the psychology of money between the two despite not being too far apart earnings wise.
You are supposed to marry for money bro, not the other way around.
Wife is the first in her family to graduate from college, now has three degrees and makes way more than I do.
-
Nice work 06
-
I think net worth might be a better indicator of economic class. Someone pulling down 200 but spending 190 of it every year isn't really wealthy.
Wealth is a separate but important issue.
Wealth is more important than income. I think it should be part of the discussion, because you earn income on accumulated wealth.
But, I am also a dumbass, so what do I know.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
since my wealth and income are both top1% on the planet, I'm just gonna assume I'm the richest man on this blob, :kstategrad: feels good fellas, not gonna lie. It should also be noted that money does not = happiness and is only really useful to buy meaningless crap anyway, obviously this concept is lost on the left though in their never ending desire to get their hands on more and more of my cash, in the end the jokes on them, sad really, it's just paper.
-
There should be a way for the public to sue the federal government for wasting or negligently spending tax dollars. Something similar to what utilities have to go through to raise their rates. There could be some advocate general or something elected by the public or appointed by the scotus or something.
-
There should be a way for the public to sue the federal government for wasting or negligently spending tax dollars. Something similar to what utilities have to go through to raise their rates. There could be some advocate general or something elected by the public or appointed by the scotus or something.
The advocate general would just be a hack tho
-
There should be a way for the public to sue the federal government for wasting or negligently spending tax dollars. Something similar to what utilities have to go through to raise their rates. There could be some advocate general or something elected by the public or appointed by the scotus or something.
The advocate general would just be a hack tho
I envisioned some slick class action attorney. Obviously he'd get a percent of the judgment. With $4 trillion budget and egregious waste in the billions, I think we'd attract some talent.
-
There should be a way for the public to sue the federal government for wasting or negligently spending tax dollars. Something similar to what utilities have to go through to raise their rates. There could be some advocate general or something elected by the public or appointed by the scotus or something.
The advocate general would just be a hack tho
I envisioned some slick class action attorney. Obviously he'd get a percent of the judgment. With $4 trillion budget and egregious waste in the billions, I think we'd attract some talent.
:love:
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
I would take out transactional taxes, that would up the poors tax percentages. 10% sales tax for poors is like 10 % of their actual income. 10% for Henry's who spend within their means is less than 2%.
Just trying to help you skew your stats!
Edit: I'm not looking it up, but, i have read research saying salary is set with tax factored in intrinsically. the only people who have much of a gripe are small business owners.
Also, i do think taxing methods in general needs to be changed.
-
KSUW-
What level of taxation do you think would be acceptable and also provide all of the things you want out of government as well?
-
I'm rarely wrong
-
KSUW-
What level of taxation do you think would be acceptable and also provide all of the things you want out of government as well?
I'm thinking a flat tax on everyone of 10% (true tax - get rid of deductions and credits) to the Feds seems about right. Maybe another 10-15% to state/local government.
-
KSUW-
What level of taxation do you think would be acceptable and also provide all of the things you want out of government as well?
I'm thinking a flat tax on everyone of 10% (true tax - get rid of deductions and credits) to the Feds seems about right. Maybe another 10-15% to state/local government.
That's not too far from what you're paying now (unless you're eliminating property taxes?) It would probably raise the effective tax rate on most people.
-
K-S-U should hire the Obama's accountant!
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/calculating-full-tax-burden.html
-
KSUW-
What level of taxation do you think would be acceptable and also provide all of the things you want out of government as well?
I'm thinking a flat tax on everyone of 10% (true tax - get rid of deductions and credits) to the Feds seems about right. Maybe another 10-15% to state/local government.
Income? Consumption?
My biggest problem with consumption is
1) how we've designed our economy around consumption
2) is regressive unless you really game it and then you start back up with all the lobbying for deductions
3) probably creates black markets
I think it would be a mistake to eliminate property taxes too. I think philosophically income, property and consumption are the most important to tax as you want to encourage capital to seek out entrepreneurs.
-
KSUW-
What level of taxation do you think would be acceptable and also provide all of the things you want out of government as well?
I'm thinking a flat tax on everyone of 10% (true tax - get rid of deductions and credits) to the Feds seems about right. Maybe another 10-15% to state/local government.
That's not too far from what you're paying now (unless you're eliminating property taxes?) It would probably raise the effective tax rate on most people.
It's quite possible that he could achieve a cumulative rate of 25 percent now too since there is quite a bit of discretion involved in several of the taxes he mentioned, it just wouldn't be in the proportions he desires.
-
KSUW-
What level of taxation do you think would be acceptable and also provide all of the things you want out of government as well?
I'm thinking a flat tax on everyone of 10% (true tax - get rid of deductions and credits) to the Feds seems about right. Maybe another 10-15% to state/local government.
That's not too far from what you're paying now (unless you're eliminating property taxes?) It would probably raise the effective tax rate on most people.
By "state/local" I'm including property taxes.
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
Why are you paying a nanny tax?
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
Why are you paying a nanny tax?
Because I employ a nanny and pay her legally.
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
Why are you paying a nanny tax?
Because I employ a nanny and pay her legally.
You mean you pay her withholding? Because that's her tax burden, not yours
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
Why are you paying a nanny tax?
Because I employ a nanny and pay her legally.
You mean you pay her withholding? Because that's her tax burden, not yours
fica, I'm guessing
-
Seems like that should be a 1099 thing
-
It's a real big mystery how someone can be financially savvy enough to do their taxes as early as possible yet still be strapped for cash.
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
Why are you paying a nanny tax?
Because I employ a nanny and pay her legally.
You mean you pay her withholding? Because that's her tax burden, not yours
Is this a serious question?
-
Shouldn't the nanny be self employed and you are a customer?
-
Shouldn't the nanny be self employed and you are a customer?
http://www.myhomepay.com/Answers/State-Nanny-Tax/KS/Overview
-
Man taxes are complicated. Let's get to work on this.
-
Looks like my common sense solution is tax evasion.
-
The IRS doesn't like it when you try and pay full time workers as "contractors", you guys.
-
All this red tape is enough to make a guy want to raise his own kids :curse:
-
You were right, Rusty - I "only" paid about 35% of my gross income in taxes this year! :Woohoo: That's federal, state, SS, MC, real property, cars, nanny, and estimated sales tax. Not included:
1. The 7.65% of our wages that our employers have to pay for SS/MC, and that could otherwise be paid to us.
2. All the taxes passed along to me by businesses in the form of higher prices, which I have no idea how to calculate (but I'm sure some smart people have written books/articles on it).
Why are you paying a nanny tax?
Because I employ a nanny and pay her legally.
You mean you pay her withholding? Because that's her tax burden, not yours
Is this a serious question?
Describe your nanny tax
-
Shouldn't the nanny be self employed and you are a customer?
http://www.myhomepay.com/Answers/State-Nanny-Tax/KS/Overview
yeah, that's stupid. seems like a perfect situation to be classified as an independent contractor
-
Shouldn't the nanny be self employed and you are a customer?
http://www.myhomepay.com/Answers/State-Nanny-Tax/KS/Overview
That's not a tax for the employer
-
i agree. what i'm saying is the nanny should have to take care of that all on her own
-
i agree. what i'm saying is the nanny should have to take care of that all on her own
Ksuw apparently with holds but considers it a tax to him
-
maybe he's counting her wages as a tax as well?
-
Maybe he's counting his income as tax on his income. :dunno:
-
Lots of dumbassery going on in here
-
Maybe he's counting his income as tax on his income. :dunno:
approaching 100 percent taxation... OBAMA :curse:
-
Shouldn't the nanny be self employed and you are a customer?
http://www.myhomepay.com/Answers/State-Nanny-Tax/KS/Overview
yeah, that's stupid. seems like a perfect situation to be classified as an independent contractor
How so?
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
Don't care either way FICA withholding isn't a tax to the employer
-
The ignorance about FICA, UT, and nanny taxes on display here is really quite funny. I mean, do a quick google search instead of outing yourself as a complete dumbass.
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
Don't care either way FICA withholding isn't a tax to the employer
The employer has to match fica, whiz bang
-
a nanny seems like an employee to me? at least at the threshold they set
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
What difference does it make where the employee works?
-
a nanny seems like an employee to me? at least at the threshold they set
There's no "seems" about it. They are a "household employee" under IRS regs.
-
exactly
-
<--- googl'r
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
Don't care either way FICA withholding isn't a tax to the employer
The employer has to match fica, whiz bang
This is just one reason why kids should be required to a take a financial literacy class in highschool. There are actually dumbasses in this thread who didn't realize that employers are required to pay a matching 7.65% for FICA/MC. Then there's state and federal unemployment tax, too.
-
nanny tax is a weird thing to complain about, ksuw. your lifestyle has outstripped the ability to run the household without having an employee, seems like a reasonable cost?
-
OK I think I have it figured out. You are a small businesses owner, the nanny is an employee, your kids are customers, and everything else in your life is a businesses expense.
-
nanny tax is a weird thing to complain about, ksuw. your lifestyle has outstripped the ability to run the household without having an employee, seems like a reasonable cost?
I wasn't complaining about paying the nanny tax.
-
it was included in the man's overbearing taxation, wasn't it?
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
Don't care either way FICA withholding isn't a tax to the employer
The employer has to match fica, whiz bang
This is just one reason why kids should be required to a take a financial literacy class in highschool. There are actually dumbasses in this thread who didn't realize that employers are required to pay a matching 7.65% for FICA/MC. Then there's state and federal unemployment tax, too.
Is your nanny a full time salaried employee?
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
Don't care either way FICA withholding isn't a tax to the employer
The employer has to match fica, whiz bang
This is just one reason why kids should be required to a take a financial literacy class in highschool. There are actually dumbasses in this thread who didn't realize that employers are required to pay a matching 7.65% for FICA/MC. Then there's state and federal unemployment tax, too.
Is your nanny a full time salaried employee?
No. Do you seriously think that you have to be "full time" or "salaried" to be subject to FICA/MC/UT? Yeah - you probably do.
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
Don't care either way FICA withholding isn't a tax to the employer
The employer has to match fica, whiz bang
This is just one reason why kids should be required to a take a financial literacy class in highschool. There are actually dumbasses in this thread who didn't realize that employers are required to pay a matching 7.65% for FICA/MC. Then there's state and federal unemployment tax, too.
Is your nanny a full time salaried employee?
No. Do you seriously think that you have to be "full time" or "salaried" to be subject to FICA/MC/UT? Yeah - you probably do.
Totally
-
a nanny seems like an employee to me? at least at the threshold they set
There's no "seems" about it. They are a "household employee" under IRS regs.
i called the kansas nanny tax stupid you rough ridin' idiot, not you complying with it
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
What difference does it make where the employee works?
the nanny is the business owner, the household is the customer. making the household responsible for anything but payment of services is rough ridin' stupid
-
Can you imagine if they let fast food industries or grocery stores pay their hourly workers as independent contractors???
:lol:
I'm all for ditching fica, but c'mon.
-
if you can't see the difference between actual business and a household, then you are rough ridin' stupid
-
Nanny should be just like a home daycare. It's just delivered daily.
-
i don't think a household is a business. it would essentially be the same thing, but the responsibility should fall on the nanny, not the household. just seems overly complicated.
What difference does it make where the employee works?
the nanny is the business owner, the household is the customer. making the household responsible for anything but payment of services is rough ridin' stupid
I understand what your saying, guy, but that's not how it works. The nanny is an employee of the parents.
The IRS is very skeptical of any "independent contractor" who derives all income from a single employer and works full time.
-
i can't believe the neocons aren't in agreement with me here, very puzzling
-
a nanny seems like an employee to me? at least at the threshold they set
There's no "seems" about it. They are a "household employee" under IRS regs.
i called the kansas nanny tax stupid you rough ridin' idiot, not you complying with it
You think the IRS makes kansas regs?
-
i can't believe the neocons aren't in agreement with me here, very puzzling
You're wrong about the law.
You're the only one discussing it's merits, I think
-
I bet he's getting his money's worth if you know what I mean.
-
i can't believe the neocons aren't in agreement with me here, very puzzling
You're wrong about the law.
You're the only one discussing it's merits, I think
i'm not wrong about the law, i'm saying it's a stupid law. good god you are a rough ridin' troglodyte
-
i can't believe the neocons aren't in agreement with me here, very puzzling
To be clear, a nanny&employer don't owe FICA/MC unless she earns at least $1,900 in a calendar year. So that's going to include most part-time or full-time nannies, but it's not going to include the occasional babysitter. So at least there's that.
-
i can't believe the neocons aren't in agreement with me here, very puzzling
You're wrong about the law.
You're the only one discussing it's merits, I think
i'm not wrong about the law, i'm saying it's a stupid law. good god you are a rough ridin' troglodyte
:lol:
-
you should reread the last 2 pages, i think maybe you got confused again. very understandable for such a huge idiot
-
sane person: pot should be legal in kansas
FSD: nope you're wrong about the law, it's illegal
-
Welcome to Meltdown City, USA, population 7
-
Welcome to Meltdown City, USA, population 7
:lol: Nice. But I also kinda like seven. He's growing on me.
-
i am a very likable person
-
I think K-S-U's nanny business would be way more successful if he'd just find an illegal immigrant to pay cash to.
-
I think K-S-U's nanny business would be way more successful if he'd just find an illegal immigrant to pay cash to.
Well I'm sure I could find all sorts of ways to break the law, but I'm not going to do that.
-
does your nanny watch all 4 kids or are some of them in school? what hours do they work? how much do you pay them? I'm asking for personal reasons and not trying to get involved in this nanny tax discussion.
-
That nanny tax link a couple pages back made it pretty clear that the employer tax burden was 2% after tax breaks. The example was $500 salary, $50 employer tax, $40 employer tax breaks.
-
That nanny tax link a couple pages back made it pretty clear that the employer tax burden was 2% after tax breaks. The example was $500 salary, $50 employer tax, $40 employer tax breaks.
That's not quite right, but close enough. I already factored those tax breaks (the child care deduction) into calculating my true tax rate. Again, true tax rate is a simple calculation: total taxes paid / gross income.
-
By two percent, I meant two percent of the nanny's pay, which I assume would be like 0.4% of gross income otherwise you probably shouldn't have a nanny
-
did my taxes, tax rate on W2 income was 18%, on my actual income without pretax payroll deductions it was 15.5% (and I had our cheapest health insurance plan).
According to the estimated sales tax calculator from the IRS, sales tax was about 1.5% of my income. No nanny, and as as a renter I don't count property tax even though my rent pays it.
all in all, seems pretty reasonable
-
did my taxes, tax rate on W2 income was 18%, on my actual income without pretax payroll deductions it was 15.5% (and I had our cheapest health insurance plan).
According to the estimated sales tax calculator from the IRS, sales tax was about 1.5% of my income. No nanny, and as as a renter I don't count property tax even though my rent pays it.
all in all, seems pretty reasonable
You should make more money and get better insurance.
-
did my taxes, tax rate on W2 income was 18%, on my actual income without pretax payroll deductions it was 15.5% (and I had our cheapest health insurance plan).
According to the estimated sales tax calculator from the IRS, sales tax was about 1.5% of my income. No nanny, and as as a renter I don't count property tax even though my rent pays it.
all in all, seems pretty reasonable
You should make more money and get better insurance.
but those low cali state taxes! :love:
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/the-tipping-point-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=thetwoway
-
$126k as upper class is pretty wtf.
-
$126k as upper class is pretty wtf.
you may be a little out of touch.
-
seems like there need to be more than 3 classes. a family of 3 making 45k seems quite a bit different than a family of 3 making 115k.
-
$126k as upper class is pretty wtf.
you may be a little out of touch.
A teacher and construction worker with a kid in NE or KS make that. I imagine they'd make significantly more than that on either coast. Maybe it's my idea of what "upper class" stands for that's off.
-
$126k as upper class is pretty wtf.
you may be a little out of touch.
A teacher and construction worker with a kid in NE or KS make that. I imagine they'd make significantly more than that on either coast. Maybe it's my idea of what "upper class" stands for that's off.
Or a lot out of touch.
-
$126k as upper class is pretty wtf.
you may be a little out of touch.
A teacher and construction worker with a kid in NE or KS make that. I imagine they'd make significantly more than that on either coast. Maybe it's my idea of what "upper class" stands for that's off.
probably not
-
yeah i don't think your avg ks teacher/constructo combo is making 126k.
-
Well, fine
-
A very specific pair would, but def not the avg teacher/ construction combo.
-
A teacher and construction worker with a kid in NE or KS make that.
they'd actually make just as much without a child, although taxes would cut into their take home a littler harder.
-
Still, I think SD's point is valid
-
his point about how his concept of upper class was skewed was valid.
-
$126,000 in a major city on either coast is an average Joe lifestyle. In a place like Houston or Detroit, you're living in a mansion.
-
seems like there need to be more than 3 classes. a family of 3 making 45k seems quite a bit different than a family of 3 making 115k.
I agree
-
So I'm obviously out of touch but I can see $126k being upper-middle. in my head there are 6 classes. lower, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, upper, ultra rich. and, again this is just in my head if you asked me, "hey sd, if my household income (2 adults) was X where would you say I fell?" I would make the cutoffs:
lower: below $25k
lower-middle: $25k-$50k
middle: $50k-$100k
upper-middle: $100k-$250k
upper: $250k-$1 million
ultra rich: $1 million+ or a net worth of $5 million+
but, without anything to describe the classes other than the words that make up the class names it's pretty meaningless. also net worth isn't something I think about outside of the ultra rich and it probably should be.
-
Depends on number of people in family too I would think.
Debt should be a consideration to. If you make 150k and owe 150k where does that put you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Depends on number of people in family too I would think.
Debt should be a consideration to. If you make 150k and owe 150k where does that put you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yeah, both good points. I think in the original example it was a household of 3 so I assumed 2 adults and a kid.
-
perhaps relevant
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/why-rich-people-think-theyre-in-the-middle-class
-
Also relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities
-
Depends on number of people in family too I would think.
Debt should be a consideration to. If you make 150k and owe 150k where does that put you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That just means you've probably built up quite a bit of equity in your home.
-
Also relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities
Amazing how many poor people are in NYC. I realize it's a huge place full of neighborhoods most people never go, but still.
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/09/459087477/the-tipping-point-most-americans-no-longer-are-middle-class?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=thetwoway
So in 1971 60.8% of people were middle class, now they are 49.9%, a difference of 10.9% (percentage points, whatever). At the same time the upper class grew from 14.0% to 21.1%, a difference of 7.1%, and the lower class grew by 3.8%. So, really, more of those middle class people were able to elevate themselves to upper class than sunk into lower class. This is a good thing, IMO.
-
Upper is just defined as twice the median though
-
Depends on number of people in family too I would think.
Debt should be a consideration to. If you make 150k and owe 150k where does that put you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That just means you've probably built up quite a bit of equity in your home.
I was thinking college debt
-
Depends on number of people in family too I would think.
Debt should be a consideration to. If you make 150k and owe 150k where does that put you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That just means you've probably built up quite a bit of equity in your home.
I was thinking college debt
Then you're upper class
-
Depends on number of people in family too I would think.
Debt should be a consideration to. If you make 150k and owe 150k where does that put you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That just means you've probably built up quite a bit of equity in your home.
I was thinking college debt
Then you're upper class
Because you are probably a doctor or lawyer
-
man, i really don't have it that bad.
-
Also relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities
I think being able to afford the average home in the best public school district in a metro is good dividing line for most places except NYC, SF.
Trulia is telling me the average home in the BV school district is around $360k
CNN's Home Affordability Calculator is telling me if you can put 20% down ($72k) you can afford that the average house with a yearly salary of $62k with no debt. That seems a little low but I will take CNN's 36% of gross as true unless someone has a better number or calculator.
I looked at Barrington, IL, the first Northside of Chicago school district that had more than 5,000 kids in it and is a top 10 school districts in IL. Average house is $488k and you would need to make $80k if you could put $100k down.
I am not sure this is perfect but I would have no problem saying you are NOT Upper Middle class if you are under these numbers and the fact you need to make 30% more to live the same lifestyle in Chicago as KC sounds about right.
-
360k house is too expensive for a 62k salary.
-
Yeah that sounds crazy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
LOL at someone making $62K a year sitting on a nest egg of $70K.
(actually Jeffy and his brother probably would try to argue this is the natural order of things, but they are gone.)
-
I actually think a better rule of thumb for a first time home buyer with limited cash down is ~1.25-1.50 yearly household salary ~= cost of home.
-
I agree, a better calculator is needed but I would say the spread is correct other than the average house actually is can vary a great amount. The 360k house in BV is likely 4 bed, 3 bath, 2 car garage with a minimum of 2,000 sq-ft and a basement.
I just looked up Alexandria, VA, one of the better school districts in DC, and the average home price is $500k but my buddy paid $625k for a 3 bd/2ba split level, no basement, no garage. It was a flip job so the kitchen and baths are nicely redone but it still looks like a $150k house in Old OP.
-
LOL at someone making $62K a year sitting on a nest egg of $70K.
(actually Jeffy and his brother probably would try to argue this is the natural order of things, but they are gone.)
I actually think a better rule of thumb for a first time home buyer with limited cash down is ~1.25-1.50 yearly household salary ~= cost of home.
The 20% down assumption is based on the premise that this is the 2 parent household with a couple of kids looking for the second home that they will stay in for the duration of the kids schooling and assuming they made at least some cash on the first home and saved some.
-
real estate sites always tell you that you can afford more than you can afford
-
real estate sites always tell you that you can afford more than you can afford
it looks like a cool mil is what it takes to buy the average home in palo alto (the best public school district in SF), will you likely rent your entire time in SF?
-
KatKid appears to be the only one who is considering the size of the mortgage.
I was getting pre approved one time and the mending company asked how much I wanted and she responded very quickly "oh, that is no problem, just let me run it through to verify." So I pressed her a bit and asked how much u could get approved for. Long story short, she said I could have approval for 2.5x what I had asked for. Not a fanningbrag, just an illustration as to how stupid lending companies are. I'd be bankrupt had I borrowed that much.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
real estate sites always tell you that you can afford more than you can afford
it looks like a cool mil is what it takes to buy the average home in palo alto (the best public school district in SF), will you likely rent your entire time in SF?
a cool mil sounds low and yes I'll more than likely rent the entire time I live here.
-
jeez
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto-California/market-trends/
-
KatKid appears to be the only one who is considering the size of the mortgage.
I was getting pre approved one time and the mending company asked how much I wanted and she responded very quickly "oh, that is no problem, just let me run it through to verify." So I pressed her a bit and asked how much u could get approved for. Long story short, she said I could have approval for 2.5x what I had asked for. Not a fanningbrag, just an illustration as to how stupid lending companies are. I'd be bankrupt had I borrowed that much.
Gonna win 'em all!
Same here. Bought my first house when I was 23. It wasn't amazing, but it was a new build 1750SF house. The bank told me I should be buying higher than I was. Asked how much I could borrow and was told $350k. was simultaneously :cheers: :Woot: :surprised: :runaway: :ohno:
-
Yeah, the thought of people going out and buying homes based upon the amount their bank will approve is kind of scary.
-
Middle Class - The new plurality.
#thanksobama
-
Yeah, the thought of people going out and buying homes based upon the amount their bank will approve is kind of scary.
People are stupid though
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Also relevant: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/03/19/394057221/how-much-or-little-the-middle-class-makes-in-30-u-s-cities
Amazing how many poor people are in NYC. I realize it's a huge place full of neighborhoods most people never go, but still.
Shame on you, Washington DC. Just sickening.
-
This Marxist class crap is silly. What class does a guy that lives in the country, has a net worth of $50 million and lives within an annual budget of $10-$30K belong?
How about a family of 4 with a household income of $200K living paycheck-to-paycheck in a neighborhood with an average household income in the $300K range? Are they middle class?
-
:lol:
-
Good thing we are all :kstategrad: around here
-
Debt is dumb cash is king and the paid off mortgage is the new status symbol of choice.
-
Debt is dumb cash is king and the paid off mortgage is the new status symbol of choice.
:lol:
-
This Marxist class crap is silly. What class does a guy that lives in the country, has a net worth of $50 million and lives within an annual budget of $10-$30K belong?
How about a family of 4 with a household income of $200K living paycheck-to-paycheck in a neighborhood with an average household income in the $300K range? Are they middle class?
Both are upper class
-
both hinry working poor, from what I've been told on this blog
-
both hinry working poor, from what I've been told on this blog
the poor devils :frown:
-
I agree with whoever said class is relative to where you live. As a proglib globalist I believe that even our poorest as upper class, rife with American privilege, because our minimum level of welfare benefits is about 4 times the global median income.
-
Debt is dumb cash is king and the paid off mortgage is the new status symbol of choice.
So sez Dave Ramsey.
-
I agree with whoever said class is relative to where you live. As a proglib globalist I believe that even our poorest as upper class, rife with American privilege, because our minimum level of welfare benefits is about 4 times the global median income.
this is obviously true.
-
My wife is a mortgage underwriter and according to her, you can generally get a house loan of 3 times your income.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My wife is a mortgage underwriter and according to her, you can generally get a house loan of 3 times your income.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't mean it's a good idea
-
3x annual income seems about right.
-
3x annual income seems about right.
assuming equity ----> 20% down and enough to cover closing costs etc. The biggest issue as you go toward the bottom end is the lack of capital to cover the upfront costs of first-time home ownership.
-
3x annual income seems about right.
assuming equity ----> 20% down and enough to cover closing costs etc. The biggest issue as you go toward the bottom end is the lack of capital to cover the upfront costs of first-time home ownership.
i'm not sure what you mean by "issue". if you mean it as a risk that a potential homeowner is induced to take that is not in their best interest, then i disagree. the less money down the buyer puts up, the less risk they assume (and counterparties assume more risk).
-
I think he means it's difficult to attain
-
I think he means it's difficult to attain
well then. fortunately our system does not require that buyers put 20% down.
-
3x annual income seems about right.
assuming equity ----> 20% down and enough to cover closing costs etc. The biggest issue as you go toward the bottom end is the lack of capital to cover the upfront costs of first-time home ownership.
i'm not sure what you mean by "issue". if you mean it as a risk that a potential homeowner is induced to take that is not in their best interest, then i disagree. the less money down the buyer puts up, the less risk they assume (and counterparties assume more risk).
This is true. This does result in significantly higher monthly payments though so it is somewhat circular. I also am pretty conservative about living expenses.
-
Again, I think it's a class thing. To me it seems more reasonable budget-wise for a household earning $100k to purchase a $300k house than a $50k household to purchase a $50k house. I could be wrong though.
-
Batt BcKee said a loan of 3x income. so if a buyer put .2 down, that'd be a total price (excluding closing costs) of 3.75 income. i think that's still pretty reasonable.
-
Again, I think it's a class thing. To me it seems more reasonable budget-wise for a household earning $100k to purchase a $300k house than a $50k household to purchase a $50k house. I could be wrong though.
yeah, you're definitely wrong. almost certainly the rent is proportionally higher for the 50k house than the 300k house.
-
i guess to be fair, a 50k house implies it's a real crap hole, and probably needs a lot of expensive repairs.
-
i guess to be fair, a 50k house implies it's a real crap hole, and probably needs a lot of expensive repairs.
I meant to type $150k house
-
then i think my rent point is relevant again.
-
I keep forgetting that I put roughly a mortgage payment every month in to day care for 2 kids, I guess I could afford all sorts of things if I was not doing that.
:frown:
-
If you didn't have two kids, you could totally afford to have one kid!
-
If you didn't have two kids, you could totally afford to have one kid!
I'm laughing because I am hurting on the inside.
-
I keep forgetting that I put roughly a mortgage payment every month in to day care for 2 kids, I guess I could afford all sorts of things if I was not doing that.
:frown:
heh. i prolly display the opposite cognitive bias.
-
then i think my rent point is relevant again.
What is your rent point?
-
If you didn't have two kids, you could totally afford to have one kid!
I'm laughing because I am hurting on the inside.
THREE KIDS!!!!!!
Gonna win 'em all!
-
then i think my rent point is relevant again.
What is your rent point?
the rent of the 150k house is likely greater than .5x the rent of the 300k house.
-
Do you mean the mortgage?
-
Do you mean the mortgage?
no, he's talking rent vs. rent vs. mortgage
-
no. the potential house buyer has to live somewhere. either they rent or buy. the 150k house buyer pays .5x what the 300k house buyer costs (excluding proportional differences in closing costs). in most markets, i think the 150k house renter pays more than .5x the rent that the 300k house renter pays.
without considering other factors, it makes more sense for the potential occupant of a 150k house to buy than the potential occupant of the 300k house.
-
They could just live with their parents, though.
-
They could just live with their parents, though.
This has been a good strategy for most of us!
-
no. the potential house buyer has to live somewhere. either they rent or buy. the 150k house buyer pays .5x what the 300k house buyer costs (excluding proportional differences in closing costs). in most markets, i think the 150k house renter pays more than .5x the rent that the 300k house renter pays.
without considering other factors, it makes more sense for the potential occupant of a 150k house to buy than the potential occupant of the 300k house.
That makes sense. I was referring strictly to buying vs. buying (while recognizing there are other options).
-
no. the potential house buyer has to live somewhere. either they rent or buy. the 150k house buyer pays .5x what the 300k house buyer costs (excluding proportional differences in closing costs). in most markets, i think the 150k house renter pays more than .5x the rent that the 300k house renter pays.
without considering other factors, it makes more sense for the potential occupant of a 150k house to buy than the potential occupant of the 300k house.
That makes sense. I was referring strictly to buying vs. buying (while recognizing there are other options).
And I still say that the $50k household still would have a far more difficult time paying their mortgage, even considering the fact that renting the same house would be more than 0.5x the $300k house.
-
Get a job delivering pizza and appliances on the side.
-
Get a job delivering pizza and appliances on the side.
If they lived with your parents, delivering pizza can be their only job!
-
Get a job delivering pizza and appliances on the side.
Good way to get some side handies, and maybe even a cold brew!
-
And I still say that the $50k household still would have a far more difficult time paying their mortgage, even considering the fact that renting the same house would be more than 0.5x the $300k house.
you're right. maintainance costs also probably aren't proportional to house value and may offset any allometry in rent.
-
no. the potential house buyer has to live somewhere. either they rent or buy. the 150k house buyer pays .5x what the 300k house buyer costs (excluding proportional differences in closing costs). in most markets, i think the 150k house renter pays more than .5x the rent that the 300k house renter pays.
without considering other factors, it makes more sense for the potential occupant of a 150k house to buy than the potential occupant of the 300k house.
That makes sense. I was referring strictly to buying vs. buying (while recognizing there are other options).
And I still say that the $50k household still would have a far more difficult time paying their mortgage, even considering the fact that renting the same house would be more than 0.5x the $300k house.
true but making the mortgage payment may be the only real investing a $50k household will ever do even if the $150k house appreciates a lower rate than the $300k
-
I keep forgetting that I put roughly a mortgage payment every month in to day care for 2 kids, I guess I could afford all sorts of things if I was not doing that.
:frown:
Have you considered hiring a nanny? Could save you a lot of money.
-
I keep forgetting that I put roughly a mortgage payment every month in to day care for 2 kids, I guess I could afford all sorts of things if I was not doing that.
:frown:
Have you considered hiring a nanny? Could save you a lot of money.
1. There is no way this is true.
2. My mortgage is cheap.
-
i also think people are unreasonably fearful of not being able to afford their mortgage/losing their house. the ability to be able to walk away from a bad purchase and stick a bank with the results is a benefit to the house buyer, not something to worry about.
-
no. the potential house buyer has to live somewhere. either they rent or buy. the 150k house buyer pays .5x what the 300k house buyer costs (excluding proportional differences in closing costs). in most markets, i think the 150k house renter pays more than .5x the rent that the 300k house renter pays.
without considering other factors, it makes more sense for the potential occupant of a 150k house to buy than the potential occupant of the 300k house.
That makes sense. I was referring strictly to buying vs. buying (while recognizing there are other options).
And I still say that the $50k household still would have a far more difficult time paying their mortgage, even considering the fact that renting the same house would be more than 0.5x the $300k house.
true but making the mortgage payment may be the only real investing a $50k household will ever do even if the $150k house appreciates a lower rate than the $300k
that's just another example of how much easier it is for a $100k family to have a 3x salary mortgage than a $50k family.
-
It amazes me that people can live off of 50k a year. I don't understand why they don't get better jobs. weird
-
It amazes me that people can live off of 50k a year. I don't understand why they don't get better jobs. weird
it amazes me that people that make more money than $50k don't understand this. Basically, I think you should understand this, or you are stupid.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
lopak could learn a lot from checking his privilege
-
It amazes me that people can live off of 50k a year. I don't understand why they don't get better jobs. weird
you can chose to be content living at any income level you are at as long as your most basic needs are met. i know miserable people making a lot and joyful people making a little. you can live off much less than 50k and have a wonderfully content life if you choose to do so.
-
Money does buy happiness to a degree though
http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-what-science-has-to-say-1415569538
-
I keep forgetting that I put roughly a mortgage payment every month in to day care for 2 kids, I guess I could afford all sorts of things if I was not doing that.
:frown:
Have you considered hiring a nanny? Could save you a lot of money.
1. There is no way this is true.
2. My mortgage is cheap.
You might want to check it out. It has definitely been cheaper for us since we got to two kids, and the savings get bigger if you have more than two. It also depends on if you are using in-home daycare (less expensive) or facility daycare.
You also might be confusing nanny with au pair (a live in nanny). Ours has her own car, home, etc. Way cheaper. And way easier than drop off / pick up.
-
What do you pay them ksudub? I'd be interested in something like that.
-
Money does buy happiness to a degree though
http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-what-science-has-to-say-1415569538
I can't read that, but I'd agree that there's a level of financial security that once reached allows your brain to free itself up a bit, rather than constantly worrying you're down to your last buck
-
Wait until you see how happy you are when we are neighbors ;)
-
What do you pay them ksudub? I'd be interested in something like that.
We were at $10-12 when it was just two kids and now we're up to $15. We guarantee her at least 40 hours every two weeks but it's usually more like 60. That's the other thing: it's tough to find part time facility care, but nanny arrangements can be much more flexible. The only thing that's kind of a pain in the ass is doing the employment tax if you choose to pay her legally, but you also get the income tax deduction that way which pretty much offsets the FICA/employment tax.
Care.com is the place to find a nanny.
-
Cool, thx
-
My brother had a live in nanny for a couple of years for his kids. I think I recall him saying he paid $18k plus room and board.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
If you have a few farm critters, cats with brain problems, and a yard with a variety of grass and legumes, can you be considered middle with class?
-
FYI, most of the BTO's I run with (big-time operators) don't have their wives work.
-
FYI, most of the BTO's I run with (big-time operators) don't have their wives work.
That's some BTM (big-time misogyny)
-
stay at home mom with a degree is upper class move.
-
Yeah good info ksuw. We actually pay less than that at an in home and it's pretty convenient. May change our mind with one off to pre-school and multiple drop off locations/pick ups.
-
leaving your kids with strangers all day because you want more earthly possessions is pretty losery and un- enlightened, I mean unless you just can't provide sufficiently.
-
betas
-
leaving your kids with strangers all day because you want more earthly possessions is pretty losery and un- enlightened, I mean unless you just can't provide sufficiently.
Who leaves their kids with a stranger?
-
Upper middle class is also having both degreed wife not working and a nanny.
-
Being a mom is the hardest job on earth, guys
-
Guys please leave the nannies out of your class warfare. Not cool.
-
the big plusses about nannies are that they are in your house so you don't have to drop off and pick up and you can also tell them to do the dishes or vacuum or whatever while they are there.
-
So they live there or just show up at ass crack of dawn?
-
Upper middle class is also having both degreed wife not working and a nanny.
Yes. It's why I go to work everyday. Someday
-
If we have to start a separate nanny thread Obi is going to mock us to death.
-
At those prices, I may get a nanny if I can get him/her to mow, do dishes, dust, go to the grocery store, etc. Kids both in school, so they only would need nanny'ing like 2 hrs a day after school.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
We ask ours to take prepare meals for, and clean up after, the kids. She's not a servant.
-
We ask ours to take prepare meals for, and clean up after, the kids. She's not a servant.
So she does everything CNS mentioned except dust?
-
We ask ours to take prepare meals for, and clean up after, the kids. She's not a servant.
you're only paying her 12/hour so yeah. throw a couple more dollars at her and she might actually work. i mean you get what you pay for and you're paying babysitter money. call her a nanny if it makes you feel better though, i'm not the judging type.
-
caring for a child includes feeding it, but does not include cleaning the entire house surrounding the child. ksuw's line seems pretty clear and logical.
-
I've had a nanny. They're not housekeepers. I also paid cash and did not withhold taxes. eff the police.
-
really, paying a grownup $10/hour to watch two kids all day (without even doing the dishes) is borderline insulting
-
I paid cash and did not withhold taxes. eff the police.
good work, chum1.
-
really, paying a grownup $10/hour to watch two kids all day (without even doing the dishes) is borderline insulting
i have no idea why an adult human would tolerate the presence of a child.
-
really, paying a grownup $10/hour to watch two kids all day (without even doing the dishes) is borderline insulting
I wouldn't leave my kids with someone who could only get $10/hr from their job. Unless it was an actual babysitter. Like, first job, saving money for a car type, babysitter.
-
caring for a child includes feeding it, but does not include cleaning the entire house surrounding the child. ksuw's line seems pretty clear and logical.
i'm not sure who advocated "cleaning the entire house" but i can tell you most full time nannies do some very light housework. dishes, vacuum. like anything it's open to some negotiation. pay a decent wage and you'll get a good person who would be happy to help out a bit given the fact that they are at your house for more waking hours than you are.
-
really, paying a grownup $10/hour to watch two kids all day (without even doing the dishes) is borderline insulting
i have no idea why an adult human would tolerate the presence of a child.
everyone has their price
-
Glad I'm done with that mess
-
Why the hell would anyone want to have kids?
-
Why the hell would anyone want to have kids?
Why do anything challenging ever?
-
Why the hell would anyone want to have kids?
Why do anything challenging ever?
:lol:
-
It amazes me that people can live off of 50k a year. I don't understand why they don't get better jobs. weird
it amazes me that people that make more money than $50k don't understand this. Basically, I think you should understand this, or you are stupid.
Gonna win 'em all!
I don't want to understand it because it sounds horrible but to each their own and if you can make it work and are happy then I think that's great.
-
Let's not get classist
-
It amazes me that people can live off of 50k a year. I don't understand why they don't get better jobs. weird
it amazes me that people that make more money than $50k don't understand this. Basically, I think you should understand this, or you are stupid.
Gonna win 'em all!
I don't want to understand it because it sounds horrible but to each their own and if you can make it work and are happy then I think that's great.
It would really just depend on where you live and whether or not you have kids. A joint income of $50k would be pretty tight with kids, but not that bad without them.