Living in SF or NYC is a luxury, for the billionth time.
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
According to Wiki, the median income in NYC is 48.6k; the median income in the US is 50k. Certain parts of NY are expensive to live in; others are not. It may be difficult to move from one state or another but I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who are born on 6th Avenue, take low-paying jobs and can't figure out how to commute from the Lower East Side.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Oh man, the cost of living fallacy.
To think most of the last thread without getting tied up in that.
In short, no, there are very few places where 60k a year makes you poor. Unless you've got a dozen kids or a medical condition or something, you're going to be in the "comfortable" zone.
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
To think most of the last thread without getting tied up in that.
In short, no, there are very few places where 60k a year makes you poor. Unless you've got a dozen kids or a medical condition or something, you're going to be in the "comfortable" zone.
And people are generally thinking of a total household income of X. So 60K for 2 adults + X children as opposed to 60K per adult.
edit: I know spool in particular does that every damn time
RiemannLives on
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
To think most of the last thread without getting tied up in that.
In short, no, there are very few places where 60k a year makes you poor. Unless you've got a dozen kids or a medical condition or something, you're going to be in the "comfortable" zone.
And people are generally thinking of a total household income of X. So 60K for 2 adults + X children as opposed to 60K per adult.
edit: I know spool in particular does that every damn time
I mean, to be fair a family of four will not be sitting pretty, but unless they're terrible at finances they won't be facing homelessness and starvation either. It doesn't make them The Fancy Rich Oppressor, but nor does it make them Johnny Food Stamps.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
Well sure, but his children live about as well as I did under a single mom who was making $8/hour except they have xboxes. It makes political arguments especially stupefying.
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
Well sure, but his children live about as well as I did under a single mom who was making $8/hour except they have xboxes. It makes political arguments especially stupefying.
Does he live in Waukesha or Janesville? I bet it's Waukesha
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
Well sure, but his children live about as well as I did under a single mom who was making $8/hour except they have xboxes. It makes political arguments especially stupefying.
Does he live in Waukesha or Janesville? I bet it's Waukesha
Belvidere Illinois
A pretty conservative town owned by General Mills
override367 on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited January 2013
@override367 Your story about your brother makes me think of that John Cheese article. "Well sure, I don't have a lot of money after I spend it."
well to be fair they take a pretty hefty sum out before he gets it, between health insurance and bankruptcy garnishment I think he's clearing like $550/week and they have to take care of 3 kids, one is blind one has cancer
the thing is, he thinks liberals want him to get a raw deal and conservatives want to help him, he fancies himself as the kind of guy republicans are "for". It's a huge problem in America
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
Well sure, but his children live about as well as I did under a single mom who was making $8/hour except they have xboxes. It makes political arguments especially stupefying.
Does he live in Waukesha or Janesville? I bet it's Waukesha
Belvidere Illinois
A pretty conservative town owned by General Mills
Ahhh, yes. Belvidere. I've got a few horror stories about extended family from around there.
Just call your brother a FIB and end the conversation. That's about as far as it should go
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Either way I don't think anybody would suggest raising taxes on him. I'd be happy to put the upper limit on the middle class bracket(s) at 150k (or three times the median household income going forward).
Median income is a pretty silly metric when 21% of the pop are in poverty.
a family on 70000 in NYC easily qualifies for HDFC subsidized housing!
Not "easily." You only qualify at that income if you have 5+ members of your household. And HDFC is not Section 8 housing (which has lower limits), its distressed housing that is transferred to developers by the city in order to sell to individuals or more commonly co-ops specifically for low income individuals at rates they can afford as their primary residence.
Its basically organized gentrification without pricing out the current residents. Its a pretty good program from everything I've heard and not one that has cost the city much at all.
Living in SF or NYC is a luxury, for the billionth time.
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
Because commuting is not an option. Apparently.
Also, to my knowledge pretty much every adult gets a say in where they live. I mean, there are a few corner cases (sex offenders who are barred by expansive restrictions, or active military who receive generous housing allowances) but for the most part you choose your own adventure.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
You only save 30 cents on the dollar (on average) for moving further away because of gas. So it's not a super great option in terms of cash, though it does help.
Not going to step into the "what is middle class debate." Would have been nice if taxes got raised on single people making more than 250K a year, but we came pretty damn close to hitting the revenue level that would have achieve with taxes going up on people making 400k a year. As someone said it the last thread baby steps, we manage to get taxes up on the greedy fuckers that didn't want to pull their weight and that's a huge improvemnt IMO. Even if we need pt push for some more tax hikes a on a few things. We also have a few less things for Congress to dick around with every year because those things are now indexed with inflation.
Rather than focusing on what is middle class, I think the debate should shift back to how to do we educate people on what their responsiblity is to society. Nothing is free and to keep society running, we need to fund things and that means people need to pay taxes. Taxes aren't the government stealing your money, they are a necessary action so that the government can fulfill its obligations. We also need to educate the public that most of the entitlement stuff isn't handouts, like conservatives want everyone to believe. As for the few things that are entitlement spending, we need to beat it into people's heads that having people dying on the streets and so desparate for basic necessities will not save them one fucking penny, it'll create a host of issues that will fuck them over.
In recent days, U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials repeatedly have warned that leading the government to a default on its debt could result in serious economic disruptions.
Meanwhile, John Engler, the head of the Business Roundtable, a trade group of company chief executives, has recently called for a five-year increase in the debt limit, divorcing it from the spending debate.
This is another reason why I believe Obama won't fold and why we probably won't have a default. I suspect a sizable chunk of the business community, that isn't entralled to randian bullshit, will tell the GOP they'll cut this shit out or they'll have a good chunk of the financial support disappearing and backing opponents that don't buy into idealogy that encourages blowing up the world economy to score points.
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Living in SF or NYC is a luxury, for the billionth time.
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
Because commuting is not an option. Apparently.
Also, to my knowledge pretty much every adult gets a say in where they live. I mean, there are a few corner cases (sex offenders who are barred by expansive restrictions, or active military who receive generous housing allowances) but for the most part you choose your own adventure.
NYC has some of the widest income disparities in the country.
Why don't you take a trip to the poorest parts of the city and tell them that they live in squalor because they choose to.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Can someone explain to me why the argument is over people making $60,000-$70,000 per year when the line, at its lowest, has always been $250,000?
Is this what you might call wasted energy? Pissing up a rope?
Absolutely no one is trying to make taxes higher on people making $60k-$70k. Whether or not that's the upper bound of poor has absolutely nothing to do with a) the tax discussion, b) the spending discussion, or c) the fucking Debt Ceiling.
Now, there are assholes wanting to make taxes higher on people making $20,000, but that's a different story.
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
I suspect that the specific areas of government that Heritage wants to be shut down are rather predictable, and they'd be quick to complain if certain other areas got shut down instead.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Can someone explain to me why the argument is over people making $60,000-$70,000 per year when the line, at its lowest, has always been $250,000?
Is this what you might call wasted energy? Pissing up a rope?
Absolutely no one is trying to make taxes higher on people making $60k-$70k. Whether or not that's the upper bound of poor has absolutely nothing to do with a) the tax discussion, b) the spending discussion, or c) the fucking Debt Ceiling.
Now, there are assholes wanting to make taxes higher on people making $20,000, but that's a different story.
This discussion is highly relevant to the debt ceiling, actually, since revenue from taxes and entitlement spending both determine how much debt we actually need to run our government.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
I suspect that the specific areas of government that Heritage wants to be shut down are rather predictable, and they'd be quick to complain if certain other areas got shut down instead.
Look, how am I going to pay for all these useless fighter jets when I have to dole out Social Security and Medicare payments?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Can someone explain to me why the argument is over people making $60,000-$70,000 per year when the line, at its lowest, has always been $250,000?
Is this what you might call wasted energy? Pissing up a rope?
Absolutely no one is trying to make taxes higher on people making $60k-$70k. Whether or not that's the upper bound of poor has absolutely nothing to do with a) the tax discussion, b) the spending discussion, or c) the fucking Debt Ceiling.
Now, there are assholes wanting to make taxes higher on people making $20,000, but that's a different story.
This discussion is highly relevant to the debt ceiling, actually, since revenue from taxes and entitlement spending both determine how much debt we actually need to run our government.
It's not relevant if no one is proposing it, talking about, or even brave enough to appear to be considering it.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Living in SF or NYC is a luxury, for the billionth time.
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
Because commuting is not an option. Apparently.
Also, to my knowledge pretty much every adult gets a say in where they live. I mean, there are a few corner cases (sex offenders who are barred by expansive restrictions, or active military who receive generous housing allowances) but for the most part you choose your own adventure.
What do you think is a reasonable mortgage for a middle class dual income family of $60000?
Living in SF or NYC is a luxury, for the billionth time.
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
Because commuting is not an option. Apparently.
Also, to my knowledge pretty much every adult gets a say in where they live. I mean, there are a few corner cases (sex offenders who are barred by expansive restrictions, or active military who receive generous housing allowances) but for the most part you choose your own adventure.
What do you think is a reasonable mortgage for a middle class dual income family of $60000?
Assuming two kids, about $1,100 should be your limit on the mortgage. But the mortgage is just how you finance the house. I prefer to focus on how much you should spend on a house. Rule of thumb: no more than 2.5 times gross annual income. This family should try to keep it south of a $150K house. So if they live in an expensive area, they should rent instead of buy.
enc0re on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
Heritage is full of crap,basically.
Because sure, we could keep paying our debt down. But I hope military service members don't need to eat or pay rent or your grandma doesn't need any medical treatments and that there aren't any major natural disasters that parts of the country need to rebuild from.
What Heritage wants us to think is that a shutdown/hitting the debt ceiling would mean Those Darn Bureaucrats wouldn't get their leech pay and that Ma and Pa Welfare Queen would have to start bootstrapping.
But of course the real truth is that heritage doesn't actually want a shutdown, they just want to get their donors all hot and bothered about it so they can grift some more people.
American conservatism is a goddamn ponzi scheme.
+8
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Living in SF or NYC is a luxury, for the billionth time.
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
Because commuting is not an option. Apparently.
Also, to my knowledge pretty much every adult gets a say in where they live. I mean, there are a few corner cases (sex offenders who are barred by expansive restrictions, or active military who receive generous housing allowances) but for the most part you choose your own adventure.
What do you think is a reasonable mortgage for a middle class dual income family of $60000?
Owning a home makes you upper class. Don't you know the middle class live in their cars?
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
there's nothing we could stop paying that's large enough and wouldn't get the government sued forcing a default anyway
furthermore as the pie plates start crashing the market will flip the fuck out
I don't follow. I don't know the size of our monthly debt service costs, but surely they are far less than the overall cost of operating the government.
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
Heritage is full of crap,basically.
Because sure, we could keep paying our debt down. But I hope military service members don't need to eat or pay rent or your grandma doesn't need any medical treatments and that there aren't any major natural disasters that parts of the country need to rebuild from.
What Heritage wants us to think is that a shutdown/hitting the debt ceiling would mean Those Darn Bureaucrats wouldn't get their leech pay and that Ma and Pa Welfare Queen would have to start bootstrapping.
But of course the real truth is that heritage doesn't actually want a shutdown, they just want to get their donors all hot and bothered about it so they can grift some more people.
American conservatism is a goddamn ponzi scheme.
I swear, if spacekungfuman had absolutely anything to gain by influencing the people who specifically read this thread, I would be convinced that he was some sort of hyper manipulative neo-conservative plant. Always with the "Well gee guys, if you look at it from this point of view that I know about as a super rich guy, you can see that maybe this thing that you know is bullshit won't really be bullshit! Oh but I totally think its bullshit too, I'm just gonna only explain why its not, and then say that I agree with you." I guess I should appreciate the unique perspective, but I always feel like he's trying to convince me of something that he immediately then says he doesn't himself believe.
there's nothing we could stop paying that's large enough and wouldn't get the government sued forcing a default anyway
furthermore as the pie plates start crashing the market will flip the fuck out
I don't follow. I don't know the size of our monthly debt service costs, but surely they are far less than the overall cost of operating the government.
Depends on the type of debt.
There's almost certainly a lot of pending bills for work which was started under the congressional budget. The US government can't exactly buy X million units of MREs, then go "yeah um, we don't need them anymore, can you take them back?"
I suspect it would be very difficult to actually determine how much outlying liability the US government has coming in compared to revenues at any given instant in time. It might be less then receipts but that uncertainty itself would be a disaster to have called into question.
On top of, of course, the sudden cessation of every service in the government and massive unemployment from all the private contractors who suddenly have lost their biggest - possibly only significant - client.
It's possible to live in utter poverty while making $60k a year, my brother does it!
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
Well sure, but his children live about as well as I did under a single mom who was making $8/hour except they have xboxes. It makes political arguments especially stupefying.
Does he live in Waukesha or Janesville? I bet it's Waukesha
Belvidere Illinois
A pretty conservative town owned by General Mills
Wait what? On 60K I could live like a king in Belvidere! My wife is from Rockford and has family in Belividere. What I pay for my 3 bedroom townhouse in Algonquin, I could have a mansion in Belvidere!
they have to take care of 3 kids, one is blind one has cancer
Nevermind, if I had issues like that I would probably be a financial and emotional mess and hate Obama too. Judgement is taken back. :
Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture. Certainly, vast inflows of federal tax receipts—inflows that far exceed amounts needed to pay monthly interest costs on debt—would continue. Thus, the government would never be forced to default on its debt because of a lack of income.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
Heritage is full of crap,basically.
Because sure, we could keep paying our debt down. But I hope military service members don't need to eat or pay rent or your grandma doesn't need any medical treatments and that there aren't any major natural disasters that parts of the country need to rebuild from.
What Heritage wants us to think is that a shutdown/hitting the debt ceiling would mean Those Darn Bureaucrats wouldn't get their leech pay and that Ma and Pa Welfare Queen would have to start bootstrapping.
But of course the real truth is that heritage doesn't actually want a shutdown, they just want to get their donors all hot and bothered about it so they can grift some more people.
American conservatism is a goddamn ponzi scheme.
The thing that's killing me is the people who say Obama is a dictator are saying we should give him dictatorial powers. If the executive can go through the budget line by line and decide which bills to pay and which to ignore how is congress even relevant anymore?
Posts
The only party who loves America enough to destroy it
HELLO I LOVE YOU
WON'T YOU BLOW UP MY HOUSE (to the tune of a doors song).
For people who move there yes
Not everyone gets a say in where they live
According to Wiki, the median income in NYC is 48.6k; the median income in the US is 50k. Certain parts of NY are expensive to live in; others are not. It may be difficult to move from one state or another but I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who are born on 6th Avenue, take low-paying jobs and can't figure out how to commute from the Lower East Side.
To think most of the last thread without getting tied up in that.
In short, no, there are very few places where 60k a year makes you poor. Unless you've got a dozen kids or a medical condition or something, you're going to be in the "comfortable" zone.
25% of his pay goes to bankruptcy, pays student loans, drives a truck that gets 7mpg, and recently moved even further away from work putting his monthly gas bill at ~$800 in addition to the monthly cigs and booze bill
also he spent $40,000 on a degree for his wife in graphic arts because its what she wanted despite having no aptitude or motivation to make anything of it. They lost their house with only $400 total remaining left on the mortage "because the house wasn't very good anyway", despite offers to help them pay for it but "nah I got it don't worry about it".
Blames all his problems on Obama, because he doesn't qualify for welfare and he knows people on food stamps (most recently, me) who live better than him, who can fill our fridges up and eat better than hot dogs and spaghetti. All Obama's fault, makin life so easy for the poorz
Edit: he spent over $300 per child on Christmas gifts this year, that's sure a good use of your bonus there, that'll make your kids love you
/bitter
And people are generally thinking of a total household income of X. So 60K for 2 adults + X children as opposed to 60K per adult.
edit: I know spool in particular does that every damn time
I haven't said it in this particular thread, but the usual phrase I add to that is "unless you're doing something wrong" and I wouldn't exactly call this "living in utter poverty".
I mean, to be fair a family of four will not be sitting pretty, but unless they're terrible at finances they won't be facing homelessness and starvation either. It doesn't make them The Fancy Rich Oppressor, but nor does it make them Johnny Food Stamps.
Median income is a pretty silly metric when 21% of the pop are in poverty.
a family on 70000 in NYC easily qualifies for HDFC subsidized housing!
Well sure, but his children live about as well as I did under a single mom who was making $8/hour except they have xboxes. It makes political arguments especially stupefying.
Does he live in Waukesha or Janesville? I bet it's Waukesha
Belvidere Illinois
A pretty conservative town owned by General Mills
the thing is, he thinks liberals want him to get a raw deal and conservatives want to help him, he fancies himself as the kind of guy republicans are "for". It's a huge problem in America
Ahhh, yes. Belvidere. I've got a few horror stories about extended family from around there.
Just call your brother a FIB and end the conversation. That's about as far as it should go
Not "easily." You only qualify at that income if you have 5+ members of your household. And HDFC is not Section 8 housing (which has lower limits), its distressed housing that is transferred to developers by the city in order to sell to individuals or more commonly co-ops specifically for low income individuals at rates they can afford as their primary residence.
Its basically organized gentrification without pricing out the current residents. Its a pretty good program from everything I've heard and not one that has cost the city much at all.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Because commuting is not an option. Apparently.
Also, to my knowledge pretty much every adult gets a say in where they live. I mean, there are a few corner cases (sex offenders who are barred by expansive restrictions, or active military who receive generous housing allowances) but for the most part you choose your own adventure.
Rather than focusing on what is middle class, I think the debate should shift back to how to do we educate people on what their responsiblity is to society. Nothing is free and to keep society running, we need to fund things and that means people need to pay taxes. Taxes aren't the government stealing your money, they are a necessary action so that the government can fulfill its obligations. We also need to educate the public that most of the entitlement stuff isn't handouts, like conservatives want everyone to believe. As for the few things that are entitlement spending, we need to beat it into people's heads that having people dying on the streets and so desparate for basic necessities will not save them one fucking penny, it'll create a host of issues that will fuck them over.
Anyways back to the debt ceiling.
This is another reason why I believe Obama won't fold and why we probably won't have a default. I suspect a sizable chunk of the business community, that isn't entralled to randian bullshit, will tell the GOP they'll cut this shit out or they'll have a good chunk of the financial support disappearing and backing opponents that don't buy into idealogy that encourages blowing up the world economy to score points.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
As a matter of timing, this happens to be false, but it's interesting to observe the confidence here.
NYC has some of the widest income disparities in the country.
Why don't you take a trip to the poorest parts of the city and tell them that they live in squalor because they choose to.
I certainly don't agree with the Heritage foundation, but if we engaged in a temporary government shutdown and thereby conserved what money we have for a period, couldn't we a tidally make this work? Remember, the government is collecting income taxes withheld by companies for their employees all the time, and is also seeing quarterly estimated taxes from successful self employed individuals.
Is this what you might call wasted energy? Pissing up a rope?
Absolutely no one is trying to make taxes higher on people making $60k-$70k. Whether or not that's the upper bound of poor has absolutely nothing to do with a) the tax discussion, b) the spending discussion, or c) the fucking Debt Ceiling.
Now, there are assholes wanting to make taxes higher on people making $20,000, but that's a different story.
I suspect that the specific areas of government that Heritage wants to be shut down are rather predictable, and they'd be quick to complain if certain other areas got shut down instead.
This discussion is highly relevant to the debt ceiling, actually, since revenue from taxes and entitlement spending both determine how much debt we actually need to run our government.
Look, how am I going to pay for all these useless fighter jets when I have to dole out Social Security and Medicare payments?
It's not relevant if no one is proposing it, talking about, or even brave enough to appear to be considering it.
What do you think is a reasonable mortgage for a middle class dual income family of $60000?
furthermore as the pie plates start crashing the market will flip the fuck out
Assuming two kids, about $1,100 should be your limit on the mortgage. But the mortgage is just how you finance the house. I prefer to focus on how much you should spend on a house. Rule of thumb: no more than 2.5 times gross annual income. This family should try to keep it south of a $150K house. So if they live in an expensive area, they should rent instead of buy.
Heritage is full of crap,basically.
Because sure, we could keep paying our debt down. But I hope military service members don't need to eat or pay rent or your grandma doesn't need any medical treatments and that there aren't any major natural disasters that parts of the country need to rebuild from.
What Heritage wants us to think is that a shutdown/hitting the debt ceiling would mean Those Darn Bureaucrats wouldn't get their leech pay and that Ma and Pa Welfare Queen would have to start bootstrapping.
But of course the real truth is that heritage doesn't actually want a shutdown, they just want to get their donors all hot and bothered about it so they can grift some more people.
American conservatism is a goddamn ponzi scheme.
Owning a home makes you upper class. Don't you know the middle class live in their cars?
I don't follow. I don't know the size of our monthly debt service costs, but surely they are far less than the overall cost of operating the government.
I swear, if spacekungfuman had absolutely anything to gain by influencing the people who specifically read this thread, I would be convinced that he was some sort of hyper manipulative neo-conservative plant. Always with the "Well gee guys, if you look at it from this point of view that I know about as a super rich guy, you can see that maybe this thing that you know is bullshit won't really be bullshit! Oh but I totally think its bullshit too, I'm just gonna only explain why its not, and then say that I agree with you." I guess I should appreciate the unique perspective, but I always feel like he's trying to convince me of something that he immediately then says he doesn't himself believe.
Depends on the type of debt.
There's almost certainly a lot of pending bills for work which was started under the congressional budget. The US government can't exactly buy X million units of MREs, then go "yeah um, we don't need them anymore, can you take them back?"
I suspect it would be very difficult to actually determine how much outlying liability the US government has coming in compared to revenues at any given instant in time. It might be less then receipts but that uncertainty itself would be a disaster to have called into question.
On top of, of course, the sudden cessation of every service in the government and massive unemployment from all the private contractors who suddenly have lost their biggest - possibly only significant - client.
Wait what? On 60K I could live like a king in Belvidere! My wife is from Rockford and has family in Belividere. What I pay for my 3 bedroom townhouse in Algonquin, I could have a mansion in Belvidere!
The thing that's killing me is the people who say Obama is a dictator are saying we should give him dictatorial powers. If the executive can go through the budget line by line and decide which bills to pay and which to ignore how is congress even relevant anymore?