Are you middle class?

[TTQ B4U]

Basing wealth or success off of income is something only 99% folks do. Success/wealth should be based off of how much capital you are able to accumulate.

 

 

^^ This. It's not about how much you make but what how much you invest and save. IMO more families need to live off one income and save/invest their spouses.

[Mensan]

To be honest with a few exceptions I really wish we could flip that list and pay the most to those bottom items instead...

 

I can't wait for the responses this gets. I'm so excited!

[2highpsi]

A. Most rich people alive today inherited their wealth or at least a healthy seed from which to grow their wealth.

 

I would love for you to quote a source on this statement. From everything I have researched roughly 70% (in the USA) of wealth has been "self made" and only 30% has come from inheritance.

 

http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/britains-ultra-wealthy---how-rich-4692254

 

B. Wage growth for middle and lower income jobs has been largely flat for decades. Wage growth for top earning positions has skyrocketed. This is largely due to irresponsible short-term greed on the part of executives, apathy by shareholders, and complicity by boards of directors and lawmakers.

 

Skill and amount of labor for lower income jobs has also remained almost unchanged. So the value remains equal.

 

CEOs however are responsible for 100x as many employees (companies have grown huge) and 100x as much revenue. Their responsibilities have grown, and their income went with it.

 

 

 

C. Our tax system rewards market investment - not working for a living. So people who have money can make more of it while contributing essentially nothing of value to our economy. (Before someone argues with this let me just head you off. Venture funding does contribute to the economy. What I'm talking about here is rich guy A who buys 100,000 shares of Microsoft from rich guy B, lets them gain $8 per share, and then sells the to rich guy C a year later and pays only capital gains tax on his $800,000 of income). And before we all start whining about how taxes are too high, a little history lesson might be in order. Can anyone tell me what the top marginal tax rate is now and what it was in 1955? (I'll give you a hint. If Obama is a socialist, then I don't know what you'd call Eisenhower).

 

Capital gains tax IS lower now, but do you have any idea what would happen to the average Joe's 401k if you significantly raised it? Raising cap gains to previous levels would remove the incentive for investment, and all the big money would pull out before the new rate took place. You could pretty much guarantee the Dow getting cutting in half (along with your 401k value)

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/18/opinion/011812krugman3/011812krugman3-blog480.jpg

 

D. Our government is hell bent on increasing these inequities because the same people who benefit from lackadaisical regulation, low wages for workers, and giant tax loopholes are the same people who have money for campaign contributions.

 

Now you just sound crazy. Just so I understand this clearly... you TRULY believe that the current administration is "hell bent on increasing inequities"

 

What do you think would be a fair minimum wage?

Do you understand how inflation works?

You realize that most of the tax loopholes are corporate tax loopholes that KEEP THESE COMPANIES IN THE USA? Go ahead and close the loopholes, and watch the companies move operations overseas. Only problem now is you didn't increase NET tax receipts for the goverment, you decreased them. You also just lost a bunch of jobs..

 

E. I just know someone is going to bust out the "job creators" argument so let me just stuff that one right here. Rich individuals don't create jobs. Companies do. There is NO benefit to the larger economy to giving a rich individual more money. Also, companies create jobs based on need, not excess of capital. During the last recession many companies had huge stockpiles of cash but they didn't hire and they didn't increase wages. They either sat on it or gave it to shareholders (the largest of these are usually their own executives and board members) in the form of dividends. Companies hire people when demand for whatever they do causes them to need to do so. Demand spikes when there are consumers with cash in the market. The one thing you said that was actually correct was that poor people and middle class people spend money. Why? Because they don't already have everything they need or want. So, if you want to really create jobs, you don't give money to a bunch of rich individuals in the form of tax breaks so they can squirrel it away and become richer, you put it in the hands of people who will use it. Henry Ford wasn't a bleeding heart but he paid his employees a good wage. Why? So they could afford to buy his cars.

Your first part of this comment is basically you explaining market efficiency. This is the backbone of a free market society.

 

In the second part of your comment you bitch about board members voting to pay dividends. You do realize that in a publicly traded company, stock holders are OWNERS of the company, right? God forbid a business owner(s) turn a profit and vote to keep some of that for themselves.

 

In the last part I will reiterate my earlier point. The tax breaks are to incentivise the company to do business somewhere, be it local, state, or in the country. Again, these tax breaks are not approved by some slick politician getting his palm waxed, like it's happening in your head. These are governmental bodies who do the math on tax revenues, and make the cuts needed to prevent the business from going elsewhere (again, a different city state or country) These aren't welfare handouts. This is the government taking less of THE COMPANIES money, to ensure that they are atleast getting some of it.

 

F. This narrative, about how poor people and middle class people could become wealthy if they weren't so entitled, is utter garbage. I'm not saying people don't sometimes do self-defeating things. Hell, this is a car forum. Everyone on here loves expensive four-wheeled-depreciation machines. But the story that massive entitlement and bad morals gives rise to 99% of our country being SOOOO much poorer than 1% of our country is a fairytale that the richest of us tell ourselves to mask the truth - the wealth gap is caused by unrestrained rapacious greed.

 

Again, coming full circle to earlier... find me these sources stating that all this wealth is inherited. The sources I am seeing show 70% + of it being self made, which destroys your narrative.

 

I'm not even close to being rich. I would venture to guess you and I have fairly close household incomes. The only difference is, I accept PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my lack of wealth.

 

I'm not hung up on everyone "above me" on the totem pole. Good for them.

 

The sooner you accept personal responsibility for your position in life, no matter good or bad, the happier you will be.

Edited April 11, 2015 by 2highpsi

[Lauren]

Great post 2highpsi!

[gillbot]

this.

 

i'm not sure where i fit into the whole class discussion. i'm not the guy on the far right of that graph, but i live very comfortably. i've never felt held back by the 1% or .1% or whatever the guy on the far right is. i HAVE felt held back by the pile of deadbeat leeches that comprise the far left portion of the graph---assuming that is where much of the 40+% taxes i pay goes.

 

i believe in hard work and sacrifice--and have done an enormous amount of each to get where i am. i work very hard. but then again, so does a washing machine.

 

let me replay the following scenario i find extremely irritating, but have come to accept:

 

random guy:: hey man, is that your GTR? awesome, what do you do for a living?

 

me:: i'm a surgeon

 

random guy:: damn, i knew i should have been a surgeon.

 

me:: ??

 

seriously?? i'm not going to even go into what it took to get through school, med school, match into surgery, residency, match into fellowship, fellowship, practice---and be successful at it. its the american dream. it takes some good fortune, some family support, but 90% hard ass work and sacrifice. the previous generation knew all about it. this generation does not

I agree with Kirk and Casey here. I have sacrificed, worked hard and still do. I live well within my means and most of America chooses not to, why should I have to bail them out for spending or living poorly? I started my life in the far left of that graph and dug myself out of that shithole through sacrifice and hard work. It blows my mind when people make excuses and claim it's too hard to get out, because wih enough hard work and sacrifice, anyone can do it.

[caseyctsv]

So in your capital gains scenario - how did the guy buy the stock in the first place? That's right - with income that was already taxed. The inheritance tax is a scam too - why should someone have to pay tax for inheriting money that was taxed when earned? It makes no sense.

 

I am all for paying my part - but I should not be expected to pay more of my money just because I have done well. I might even rethink that if the system that was taking my money worked. Name one thing that the government runs that it does well and does it without financial waste.

 

Our politicians have 2 jobs to do: get elected and get re-elected.

[greg1647545532]

Again, these tax breaks are not approved by some slick politician getting his palm waxed, like it's happening in your head. These are governmental bodies who do the math on tax revenues, and make the cuts needed to prevent the business from going elsewhere (again, a different city state or country) These aren't welfare handouts. This is the government taking less of THE COMPANIES money, to ensure that they are atleast getting some of it.

 

When it comes to corporate tax breaks, you're willing to let governmental bodies "do the math" to figure out if lowering taxes will make a stronger economy. But when I suggest that those same governmental bodies should do the same math to figure out if wealth inequality will make for a weaker economy and a less competitive country in the long run, you start ranting about personal responsibility?

 

And then there is a chorus of agreement from people who have benefited from a strong government and a healthy society who just want to make sure that none of their tax dollars go to over-extended entitled leeches because you all busted your ass and were never handed nothing. As though you would all be living comfortable, middle-class lives in a country with a terrible, corrupt government like Haiti because you're just that plucky.

 

Someone asked why people might be concerned about wealth inequality and I tried to give an answer that did not appeal to bleeding heart liberal ideals about fairness and humanity and instead focus on the economic benefits of policies that might help to keep equality in check, and do I get an honest debate in return? Not really. Instead here comes the "welfare queens are ruining America" brigade, falling over themselves to demonize lazy entitled liberals more than the next guy.

 

It doesn't seem to matter how many times people point out solid facts showing that welfare isn't really a big deal in terms of our total tax burden. Facts get ignored because powerful people have a vested interest in diverting attention away from the real sources of our national debt and deficit. Blame welfare! And then I get accused of drinking the kool-aid. Seriously.

[2highpsi]

When it comes to corporate tax breaks, you're willing to let governmental bodies "do the math" to figure out if lowering taxes will make a stronger economy. But when I suggest that those same governmental bodies should do the same math to figure out if wealth inequality will make for a weaker economy and a less competitive country in the long run, you start ranting about personal responsibility?

 

I'm talking REALLY simple math here.

 

SOME tax receipts are more than ZERO tax receipts.

 

You cant compare taking less of someones money ("tax loopholes") to flat out giving someone something they never had (welfare)

 

I'm not saying welfare shouldn't exist. I'm saying comparing corporate tax breaks to individual welfare is laughable. The two things couldn't be further apart in practice.

 

And then there is a chorus of agreement from people who have benefited from a strong government and a healthy society who just want to make sure that none of their tax dollars go to over-extended entitled leeches because you all busted your ass and were never handed nothing. As though you would all be living comfortable, middle-class lives in a country with a terrible, corrupt government like Haiti because you're just that plucky.

 

There you go. Everyone's situation is always due to EVERY factor except themselves. Praise the government, praise society. Let me ask you this, we all live under the same government and live in the same society... why don't we all live the same lifestyle? In the equation of life in the US.. our government and society are the constants... we as individuals are the variable. Hence my harping on self responsibility.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting cutting off welfare spending. That was never my point. My point was everyone pointing at "the 1%" as the problem, are equally themselves the problem with inequality.

 

Someone asked why people might be concerned about wealth inequality and I tried to give an answer that did not appeal to bleeding heart liberal ideals about fairness and humanity and instead focus on the economic benefits of policies that might help to keep equality in check, and do I get an honest debate in return? Not really. Instead here comes the "welfare queens are ruining America" brigade, falling over themselves to demonize lazy entitled liberals more than the next guy.

 

Why is everyone so hung up on being equal. This country is about equal OPPORTUNITY not equal lives. I never said the welfare queens were ruining the country, I said if we all spent as much time figuring out how to build up our own lives, as we spent trying to tear others down, we would all be better off.

 

It doesn't seem to matter how many times people point out solid facts showing that welfare isn't really a big deal in terms of our total tax burden. Facts get ignored because powerful people have a vested interest in diverting attention away from the real sources of our national debt and deficit. Blame welfare! And then I get accused of drinking the kool-aid. Seriously.

 

What facts? this?

 

Looks like 0.6382% of our taxes go to TANF (welfare). A higher percentage goes to Food Stamps.

 

Per $10K paid in taxes:

 

That is nothing more than playing semantics.

 

Most would consider all of the following "welfare programs"

Health $2,648.42

* Includes $1,182.83 for Medicaid

* Includes $36.54 for Children's Health Insurance Program

Unemployment and Labor $843.21

* Includes $63.82 for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

* Includes $23.25 for Job Training and Employment Programs

Food and Agriculture

* $299.12 for SNAP (food stamps)

Housing and Community $5.09

 

Which adds up to more like 38% of tax spending.

[Ben]

I would love for you to quote a source on this statement.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/24/death_of_meritocracy_how_inheritance_is_poisoning_the_american_economy/

http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/reality-wealthy-inherit-ungodly-sums-money

http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/24/self-made-hallucination-americas-rich

Let’s be honest, I could go on ad-nauseum and so, probably, could you, citing articles for each side of this debate. But here’s the bottom line as I see it. I know a quite a few wealthy people and they all have at least one thing in common – they were born to money. Not necessarily rich. But at least middle to upper-middle class. I’m not a 1%er, but I’m perfectly willing to tell you that I wouldn’t be doing half as well as I am now if I didn’t have the good fortune to be born to a pair of smart relatively well-off parents who treated me right, read me books, and sent me to good schools. Not all inherited wealth comes in the form of a trust fund.

 

Skill and amount of labor for middle and lower income jobs has also remained almost unchanged. So the value remains equal.

Really? I didn’t realize people in the early 19th and 20th century were quite as tech savvy or productive as today’s workers.

But even putting aside the snark for a moment. In 1950 a worker with a high school degree could afford a decent standard of living – not a luxurious one, to be sure – but decent. Give that a try now and see how you fare.

CEOs however are responsible for 100x as many employees (companies have grown huge) and 100x as much revenue. Their responsibilities have grown, and their income went with it.

CEOs don’t micromanage their employees, they manage a team of executives, communicate with the board, and handle PR. Maybe there are more layers to the pyramid today between CEO and worker, but the CEO job is pretty much the same. If anything, they have more support now. I don’t see any justification for the level of salary inflation they have enjoyed.

 

Capital gains tax IS lower now, but do you have any idea what would happen to the average Joe's 401k if you significantly raised it? Raising cap gains to previous levels would remove the incentive for investment, and all the big money would pull out before the new rate took place. You could pretty much guarantee the Dow getting cutting in half (along with your 401k value)

A. As you correctly pointed out in your prior post, the truly “average” American doesn’t have investments or savings for that matter. They have to spend all their income to live. So let’s drop the faux concern for “average Joe” please.

B. Pull your money out and put it where? If tax rate on income were the same regardless of source, you would still invest your money, you just would do it wherever it would be most productive without worrying about different tax rates. (Even if the tax rate went up a bit here I’m not about to move to China and take the risk of their markets).

C. Capital gains has not always been what it is now. When the income tax was first created it was taxed as ordinary income. It has hardly gone a decade without change since then. Admittedly, most of the changes have been downward adjustments (which plays into my theory that money often drives politics). But in 1986 it rose from 20% to 28%. I don’t remember a market crash resulting.

 

Now you just sound crazy. Just so I understand this clearly... you TRULY believe that the current administration is "hell bent on increasing inequities"

Yes. I think it is relatively clear that quite a few politicians have largely sold “we the people” downriver in favor of lining their campaign coffers in order to buy continued reelection.

 

What do you think would be a fair minimum wage?

Honestly, I’m not sure, it would require more study than I am prepared to devote to an online debate.

 

Do you understand how inflation works?

Yes. If you need a refresher I published a paper in 2005 on currency devaluation and its interaction with American Hegemony for the Roosevelt Institution.

 

You realize that most of the tax loopholes are corporate tax loopholes that KEEP THESE COMPANIES IN THE USA?

You realize the companies are headquartered in America because their employees like to live here right? It doesn’t have much to do with taxes at all really.

But seriously, I don’t advocate closing loopholes blindly and I admit that our corporate rate is too high. We ought to tax overseas dollars so it doesn’t matter where companies hide their money but do so at a reasonable rate. Honestly, if we simplified the process, companies would come here just for the transaction costs savings. You know why every company is headquarted in Delaware? It’s not because of incentives. It’s because the Chancery Courts in Delaware are reliable and lucid. In short, they go there for certainty. Businesses and markets crave certainty far more than they crave tax savings.

 

In the second part of your comment you bitch about board members voting to pay dividends. You do realize that in a publicly traded company, stock holders are OWNERS of the company, right? God forbid a business owner(s) turn a profit and vote to keep some of that for themselves.

As someone who does a bit of trading, I like dividends just fine (except when the company can do more profitable long-term things with the money and turn it into multiplied gains in stock price). One example, I think, of more profitable long-term behavior is paying your work force well in order to cultivate a healthy business culture. You and I apparently differ on this point, but I think history will vindicate me. In any case, a CEO who makes quarterly numbers (and gives himself a big bonus in the process) by cutting expenses and undercutting his business’ future will not earn a “buy” recommendation from me.

 

In the last part I will reiterate my earlier point. The tax breaks are to incentivise the company to do business somewhere, be it local, state, or in the country.

Tax incentives are a zero sum game. If New Jersey gives big tax breaks to induce business to move to New Jersey and they do, New York loses jobs and New Jersey gains them. Net regional job gain = 0. Net tax result = negative whatever incentive New Jersey gave. Net result for company = windfall at the expense of the public! (Yes, companies could move overseas. But remember how people actually like living in America because it’s pretty nice here?)

 

Again, these tax breaks are not approved by some slick politician getting his palm waxed, like it's happening in your head. These are governmental bodies who do the math on tax revenues, and make the cuts needed to prevent the business from going elsewhere (again, a different city state or country)

Actually, though I wouldn’t describe it in such torrid terms, I think that is pretty much how it works. A policy maker makes a deal (slick politician with waxed palm) and then employs some eggheads to justify the result he wants (maths and stuff).

 

These aren't welfare handouts.

Well of course not! Welfare and handouts are for poor people. When rich people get free money we call them “subsidies” and “incentives.”

 

I'm not even close to being rich. I would venture to guess you and I have fairly close household incomes. The only difference is, I accept PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my lack of wealth.

I'm not hung up on everyone "above me" on the totem pole. Good for them.

The sooner you accept personal responsibility for your position in life, no matter good or bad, the happier you will be.

Well I don’t know how similar our incomes are. They may be. Seems we both have pretty nice cars. So obviously, neither of us starving.

I accept responsibility for my economic status. I made a decision to keep score in my life by means other than pure dollars and cents. Doing a bit of good, as I see it, figures pretty highly in my goals, for instance.

I am not “hung up on” or jealous of the rich, as you seem to imply. But I don’t worship the rich as politicians (particularly Republicans) seem to do; I don’t think their disproportionate influence in the governance of our country is a good thing; and I remember that reckless greed has never done our country any good.

 

And in case you’re wondering, the top marginal tax rate in 1955 on income over $300,000 was 92%. In the post-war years, we didn’t call it socialism, we called it patriotism.

[2highpsi]

Ask, and ye shall receive....

 

Funny enough man, I don't think that we are as polar opposite in opinion as it would seem.

 

(That probably goes for almost all of us in here)

 

I think most of us are in the "middle" (between the left and right) but we end up grasping for extremities to make our points, making us appear WAY conservative, or WAY liberal.

 

The fact is this... this country has A LOT of problems. There is no singular cause or repair.

 

I truly believe we all need to look in the mirror and ask what we OURSELVES can do better before pointing the finger at any other group. (No matter what group you currently fall into)

 

 

Nice post btw. :thumbup:

[Ben]

Funny enough man, I don't think that we are as polar opposite in opinion as it would seem.

. . .

 

Nice post btw. :thumbup:

 

Thanks. You made some strong points also.

 

Yeah, there is a great untapped middle in America that agrees on much more than the news media would suggest. The trouble is, the folks at the fringes are louder.

[Diamonds]

here's what I have been told.

 

If you are making an annual income of...

1x your age you are behind

2x your age you are slightly ahead of average

3x your age you are doing well

4x your age you are "well off"

 

...for where you are (stage) in life regarding age

 

I am unaware of what they say about 5x, 6x, etc but I assume it means you are quasi-rich (but that has a certain "relativity" value to it)

 

Just came to quote this after a TLDR runaway train

[tdyguy2k]

 

I think most of us are in the "middle" (between the left and right) but we end up grasping for extremities to make our points, making us appear WAY conservative, or WAY liberal.

 

The fact is this... this country has A LOT of problems. There is no singular cause or repair.

 

I truly believe we all need to look in the mirror and ask what we OURSELVES can do better before pointing the finger at any other group. (No matter what group you currently fall into)

 

 

I agree with this. I think a good start to repairing some of this countries problems would be to institute term limits on the members of Congress. With term limits, there would be a better chance of preventing politicians from getting rich off of lobbyist dollars. This might also make it easier for the little guy to start a business, and not be held down by regulations that benefit the big businesses that pay out the lobby money.

[BDHG940]

Great post 2highpsi!

 

+1

[Mojoe]

Ben and Jorden, great job stating your points, and not getting into name calling and belittling. Made for a good read of information and outlook. Glad we have members like yourselves and many other, who can make a point without having to shot the other person in the face for having a different view.

[TTQ B4U]

I know a quite a few wealthy people and they all have at least one thing in common – they were born to money. Not necessarily rich. But at least middle to upper-middle class.

 

Jumping into this in the middle....but are you saying the above has to be true to in order for someone to be well off? IMO it's far easier for people to do well and become wealthy than it was years ago. The playing field will never be "level" for all, but the reality is there are far more options and abiliites for even the poor to take than there were years ago. The one common thing I see in those around me that are well off, and I'm fortunate to be around many, is that they have a fire in their belly to make it happen.

 

In 1950 a worker with a high school degree could afford a decent standard of living – not a luxurious one, to be sure – but decent. Give that a try now and see how you fare.

 

Honestly I do see plenty that have done well and still do well, but I will agree that it takes more work today. However, is that really a bad thing?

 

....but the CEO job is pretty much the same. If anything, they have more support now. I don’t see any justification for the level of salary inflation they have enjoyed.

 

If you're implying there should be salary caps, I totally disagree. Sure, there are companies like GM that overpaid their people for little to no return during certain periods of time, but that's been around for years. Many however balance out their pay for performance in ways that they do justify. You and I might not see it but in the end, if they are public their investors and own people will right-size that if it's out of line.

 

A. As you correctly pointed out in your prior post, the truly “average” American doesn’t have investments or savings for that matter. They have to spend all their income to live.

 

meh....I still see a lot of the above as a choice the average American makes. Don't cry me a river when many live well above their means by choice. Even many here are CR that live paycheck to paycheck choose to spend money on technology and cars, etc. that perhaps they shouldn't. The choice remains theirs.

[coltboostin]

 

CEOs don’t micromanage their employees, they manage a team of executives, communicate with the board, and handle PR. Maybe there are more layers to the pyramid today between CEO and worker, but the CEO job is pretty much the same. If anything, they have more support now. I don’t see any justification for the level of salary inflation they have enjoyed.

.

 

100% correct. I don't think the CEO of any publicly traded company should make more than 250k a year for a base salary-the majority of their income should come from bonus based on profits and production. If your hired in to do a job, you are still just an employee of a company, CEO or Sales Clerk. But, I think any good company would set up all upper level management to have the majority of their pay performance biased as it is.

 

 

I've worked with a Company for 6 years now, and seen it grow from a small group for 50ish employees to a 40 branch Direct funded lender-total of 2500 or so employees. In that time, the CEO went from on the floor and deeply involved with the day to day activities, to now so disconnected its almost an annoyance to have him in management meetings because he really does not know whats going on day to day-he sees numbers and nothing else-but that's the way it goes and those metrics are all he needs to "manage" us. We are not publicly traded though and he was one of the founders of the company, so I'd say he has the right to take whatever comp he and his partners agree with that is reasonable.

[Tractor]

F. This narrative, about how poor people and middle class people could become wealthy if they weren't so entitled, is utter garbage. I'm not saying people don't sometimes do self-defeating things. Hell, this is a car forum. Everyone on here loves expensive four-wheeled-depreciation machines. But the story that massive entitlement and bad morals gives rise to 99% of our country being SOOOO much poorer than 1% of our country is a fairytale that the richest of us tell ourselves to mask the truth - the wealth gap is caused by unrestrained rapacious greed.

 

This is a lot of the "middle class" problem. There's a lot of money in the middle class, but there's also a very high debt/income ratio due to "GREED". If more people would live in smaller houses, own less expensive cars, learn to be self sustaining with maintenance costs on everything they own. Tell there kids they don't need EVERYTHING. Instead they saved money, put a little effort into managing their money, and stopped being so full of themselves they could restart the american dream.

 

Thats what people do who move ahead in their class, other than a few people who win lotteries. It took me a little while to really understand it, but now I can do more with half the income than I was doing a few years ago and my family still has its toys.

 

Bad news is our society is built to require you to pay X amount to live in good schools and have your kids grow up "middle class".

[coltboostin]

This is a lot of the "middle class" problem. There's a lot of money in the middle class, but there's also a very high debt/income ratio due to "GREED". If more people would live in smaller houses, own less expensive cars, learn to be self sustaining with maintenance costs on everything they own. Tell there kids they don't need EVERYTHING. Instead they saved money, put a little effort into managing their money, and stopped being so full of themselves they could restart the american dream.

 

Thats what people do who move ahead in their class, other than a few people who win lotteries. It took me a little while to really understand it, but now I can do more with half the income than I was doing a few years ago and my family still has its toys.

 

Bad news is our society is built to require you to pay X amount to live in good schools and have your kids grow up "middle class".

 

 

30k millionaires are a very real thing. I look at 15-20 credit reports a day, and I can tell you on average the more money a person makes per year, the more debt they have often the worse their over-all credit report looks. Crazy to think-but really it makes sense. If you have made 250k a year for the last 10 years-why should you ever be calling me for a mortgage?

 

Buy Cash, invest wisely.

[Got-Boost?]

Jordan and Ben, very nice guys! :thumbup:

[Trouble Maker]

If you have made 250k a year for the last 10 years-why should you ever be calling me for a mortgage?

 

Because by everything my neighbors tell me and I read online I can afford and deserve a $1mil house if I make $250k/year!

[carl1647545492]

I thought it was just the English that worried about what class they were in,seems like were not the only ones eh?

The British class system was a pretty much a rigid thing, (the vestiges of which go back hundreds of years)where just how you dressed and your deportment advertised your class even before you opened your mouth.

The idea of what class you were had more to do with money,your family heritage,school and the land you owned all had a part to play of course money mattered but here in the States its really the only metric that really matters as in I,m upper middle class because I make six figures per year.

[Tractor]

30k millionaires are a very real thing. I look at 15-20 credit reports a day, and I can tell you on average the more money a person makes per year, the more debt they have often the worse their over-all credit report looks. Crazy to think-but really it makes sense. If you have made 250k a year for the last 10 years-why should you ever be calling me for a mortgage?

 

Buy Cash, invest wisely.

 

That's how I was raised, single income family, my parents act so poor, poor people feel bad for them. Growing up we got made fun of for wearing stuff from yard sales and never had anything actually nice. Mom is the main cause and to this day she can sit in her house for years doing nothing. Growing up sucked but I did learn some things.

 

Wife on the other hand was ghetto trash for our area but had everything she wanted, money was like magic via credit cards and future planning is a foreign concept her family.

[bucd]

That's how I was raised, single income family, my parents act so poor, poor people feel bad for them. Growing up we got made fun of for wearing stuff from yard sales and never had anything actually nice. Mom is the main cause and to this day she can sit in her house for years doing nothing. Growing up sucked but I did learn some things.

 

Wife on the other hand was ghetto trash for our area but had everything she wanted, money was like magic via credit cards and future planning is a foreign concept her family.

 

This is a great thread, great read. And this. Same thing for us, i grew up on Charity Newsies clothes, they are a great organization and i give back to them when i can.

 

Son of an immigrant, when we came over back in the 80s, it was 7 of us in a 2 bedroom apartment for 7 years with single income of 8k a year for a very long time I'm very impressed with how my parents always had food on the table and roof over our heads. It makes you very humble and appreciate everything in life.

 

I've never carried any debts except for car loan and house (school loan as well, but paid that off 2 years after graduating). And in the last few years, i've now learn to try and not carry any loans but the house. So that's all i have right now.

 

-D

[Got-Boost?]

30k millionaires are a very real thing. I look at 15-20 credit reports a day, and I can tell you on average the more money a person makes per year, the more debt they have often the worse their over-all credit report looks. Crazy to think-but really it makes sense. If you have made 250k a year for the last 10 years-why should you ever be calling me for a mortgage?

 

Buy Cash, invest wisely.

 

Problem is, when you break it down after taxes, health insurance, investing, life insurance, school debt, wife, wifes boobs, kids, etc..etc.. it cuts that down pretty quick. Not saying I disagree with you but a lot goes into that salary. It's also America and a majority of people making that much want to appear like they are doing well and buy a MUCH bigger home than they need.

 

How many folks come in for a mortgage in that salary range actually buy a $250-300k house? Or are many looking at $700k-1M+ homes?