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.
The point is, if you're poor and not working so hard, or working your butt off as a lower-middle-class individual, you get the same in return.
What makes you think that lower paying jobs are actually less work than higher paying jobs? Where is the evidence for that?
People who are paid less often work 2 jobs to make ends meet, and work way more than 40 hours. Some work 80 or more a week, and they're not getting health insurance or any other benefits. Some don't even have days off (how's that for "not working so hard"?)
Where is your evidence that only lower middle class people work their "butts off"? Usually as you go higher in a company, the less work you actually do. Hence managers who can sit around a lot watching everyone else put their noses to the grindstone.
your cost of living expands as you make more money.
But it most absolutely does not have to. It's not automatic, it's a result of personal choices. We batter the poor for their choices but no one wants to hold those with money accountable? No. Whether you have 10 dollars or 10 million dollars, you're still capable of wasting money and buying things you shouldn't.
Today's responsible middle class scrimp and live like they are poorer than those who qualify for numerous freebies that the middle class pay for.
Middle class pay for others first, then pay for themselves, and finally try saving the remaining few dollars that the government still is cooking up ways to snatch up.
how? middle class gets their college paid for, it's a good start, they get cheap mortgages too... what's not to like about it? Sure rich gets more but that's how leverage works, they can leverage their wealth...
the poor need the social nets... you can be middle class and work to move into upper class or you can stay poor :S Being poor is easy, why not try doing what it takes to get rich first?
The point is, if you're poor and not working so hard, or working your butt off as a lower-middle-class individual, you get the same in return.
Tell your friends that they are seriously misinformed. There is NOTHING pleasant about being poor, and not everyone who is poor gets all those hand outs.
But you go ahead and try it, learn it the hard way if you must.
Good Lord, whatever happened to pride in working hard and reaching goals and accomplishments?
I don't think it's better to have a low paying job in this country but it's not beneficial to have a 6 figure salary either. I did a paycheck calculator on a single person claiming 1 on their taxes making 50,000 a year and a 100,000 a year. The take home pay for 50,000 year is $710 a week and the single person making 100,000 a year would take home 1,200 a week. The 100,000 earner brings home an extra 490 a week but you look at that the person with the six figure salary has more student loans to get that salary and is probably in more debt from buying a bigger house and a more exspensive car. In reality their lifestyles aren't much different finiancial wise. The 50,000 earner pays 26% in taxes while the 100k Earner pays 35% in taxes. It seems the more you make in this country the more you get screwed over. In my honest opinion a salary of 50,000-70,000 is the sweet spot for what the average individual should make to live comfortably if your single. For a family 80,000 would be a comfortable salary.
Showing a lack of understanding of the tax system.
The $50k earner pays 25% (not 26%) on taxes for earnings over $37,451. The $100k earner pays the same tax rate of 25%, up to $90,750. Then, for the amount over $90,750, the $100k earner pays 28% (not 35%).
That's why it's called a marginal tax rate. It's only on the very last $9250 that the high earner pays the higher rate. Interestingly, if your high earner hits $117k, then the tax rate actually goes down because they no longer have to pay the social security deduction.
It is always financially beneficial to earn more. Period. You never, ever go backwards by earning more.
I don't think it's better to have a low paying job in this country but it's not beneficial to have a 6 figure salary either. I did a paycheck calculator on a single person claiming 1 on their taxes making 50,000 a year and a 100,000 a year. The take home pay for 50,000 year is $710 a week and the single person making 100,000 a year would take home 1,200 a week. The 100,000 earner brings home an extra 490 a week but you look at that the person with the six figure salary has more student loans to get that salary and is probably in more debt from buying a bigger house and a more exspensive car. In reality their lifestyles aren't much different finiancial wise. The 50,000 earner pays 26% in taxes while the 100k Earner pays 35% in taxes. It seems the more you make in this country the more you get screwed over. In my honest opinion a salary of 50,000-70,000 is the sweet spot for what the average individual should make to live comfortably if your single. For a family 80,000 would be a comfortable salary.
But...but...that doesn't even make sense!! You can't compare 2 salaries and then just *decide* the higher salary is saddled with more student loans, more mortgage debt and a more expensive car loan!!!
Are you just trying to convince yourself?
Unless one is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel, and has NO hope of a brighter future, then of course more money is always better than less money. It's utterly preposterous to argue otherwise!
Assuming the *same* student loan debt, mortgage and car payment you would really rather earn $50,000 a year rather than $100,000?
And comparing tax percentages seems silly. Heck, even if I was taxed 50% I'd rather make $300,000 and take home $150,000 than make $50,000 and be taxed at only 10% and bring home $45,000!! (Not to mention that's not how taxes work anyway)
But...but...that doesn't even make sense!! You can't compare 2 salaries and then just *decide* the higher salary is saddled with more student loans, more mortgage debt and a more expensive car loan!!!
Are you just trying to convince yourself?
Unless one is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel, and has NO hope of a brighter future, then of course more money is always better than less money. It's utterly preposterous to argue otherwise!
Assuming the *same* student loan debt, mortgage and car payment you would really rather earn $50,000 a year rather than $100,000?
And comparing tax percentages seems silly. Heck, even if I was taxed 50% I'd rather make $300,000 and take home $150,000 than make $50,000 and be taxed at only 10% and bring home $45,000!! (Not to mention that's not how taxes work anyway)
This thread can't be for real...
So true.
There are other benefits for earning more. I am closer to the $100k than the $50k earner in your example. My mortgage is also not something that I could afford if I earned only $50k. But my house is also nicer.
I agree with your point though. It's silly to assume high earner simply spend additional money and are still living paycheck to paycheck.
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.
