Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know what's worse, someone saying that they can live on $300K after taxes or a rich person who says that they could live on minimum wage, no problem!
Sounds more like poor communication skills on the OP's part. He makes two clearly contradictory claims and attributes them both to "my buddy."
Not being any happier with more than $300k after tax isn't at all the same thing as not being happy with less than $300k after tax. Someone with very rudimentary logic skills can figure that out. If you aren't happy at $299,999 and anything over $300,000 doesn't make you any happier, it's extraordinarily unlikely that you're ever going to be happy -- which is mutually exclusive with "all I need is $300k to be happy."
I don't know what's worse, someone saying that they can live on $300K after taxes or a rich person who says that they could live on minimum wage, no problem!
What on Earth is wrong with someone saying they can live on $300k after taxes? I could very easily.
Sounds more like poor communication skills on the OP's part. He makes two clearly contradictory claims and attributes them both to "my buddy."
Not being any happier with more than $300k after tax isn't at all the same thing as not being happy with less than $300k after tax. Someone with very rudimentary logic skills can figure that out. If you aren't happy at $299,999 and anything over $300,000 doesn't make you any happier, it's extraordinarily unlikely that you're ever going to be happy -- which is mutually exclusive with "all I need is $300k to be happy."
I think you're misreading the OP. His title is "300K is all I need", not meaning that that's the minimum to be happy, but rather his buddy's happiness plateaus at that point. Which is consistent w/ the body of the post.
I think you're misreading the OP. His title is "300K is all I need", not meaning that that's the minimum to be happy, but rather his buddy's happiness plateaus at that point. Which is consistent w/ the body of the post.
Right.
1) 300k is all I need to be happy.
2) Beyond that I won't be any happier.
The two statements are not consistent unless you happen to be the hypothetical person in the universe who isn't happy at $299,999 and isn't any happier at $10 million per year than $300,000 per year. I agree with your analysis, however, about what you think the OP meant. I also think that's what he meant to say rather than what he did say.
1) 300k is all I need to be happy.
2) Beyond that I won't be any happier.
The two statements are not consistent unless you happen to be the hypothetical person in the universe who isn't happy at $299,999 and isn't any happier at $10 million per year than $300,000 per year. I agree with your analysis, however, about what you think the OP meant. I also think that's what he meant to say rather than what he did say.
I get what your'e saying, but I think you're being too restrictive on the language, especially given the context. Yes, normally when people make threads like this, statements such as "is all I need" refer to a minimum threshold for them. But in this case, given the rest of the post and the fact that there are no qualifiers next to '300k', I think it's OK to take on a different interpretation, which is to look at the word "all" as signaling a maximum, not a minimum.
Heaven forbid I take issue with someone who can't use all correctly in a situation =)
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You'll never convince me that using all in a fundamentally incorrect fashion is just being too restrictive. I do agree that given the context the intended use is as you describe. It's how I interpreted it, after all, since the literal meaning is completely nonsensical. 4DMIN apparently took the first part literally, and I simply gave my interpretation of why the literal meaning was probably not what the author meant to say.
That was written in 2010, so with inflation it's more now, but this kind of study is just based on the averages. I'm sure there are people making $300k that are working hard to make more, and others
making $75k that are struggling in places like San Francisco or even here where the median is $135,000.
My buddy is a self-employed management consultant. His income has remained at $300k~(after taxes) per year for 10 years.
He say's that's all he needs to earn per year to be happy. He says beyond that, his happiness would not change anymore than it is now so he doesn't have a goal to earn more. I know he saves 50% of in annual.
I thought he made perfect sense.
Your thoughts?
im impressed that your friend can be happy with so little income. how does he manage?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
