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.
^^^^
On top that that, we could do better as a country on teaching financial education and getting people to invest in the market a lot easier so they can take advantage of the millions of tax loopholes there are in that.
I'll be beating that drum until the end of time.
Yea, I agree with that as well except for the taking advantage of the millions of tax loopholes. Financial education and investment, sure, but tax loopholes should be eliminated and the tax code heavily streamlined. The idea of financial education's main purpose is to exploit the system as well as the wealthy can sounds horrendous.
Yea, I agree with that as well except for the taking advantage of the millions of tax loopholes. Financial education and investment, sure, but tax loopholes should be eliminated and the tax code heavily streamlined. The idea of financial education's main purpose is to exploit the system as well as the wealthy can sounds horrendous.
Yeah, I meant to change that around. But I'm in the minority on this - if the system is rigged against us, why not learn the rules of the system to better our lives and the ones around us? I'm past the whole cynicism "nothing can change" stage of my late 20s lol.
But financial education and encouraging everyone to save and invest needs to be emphasized way more. The fact that 60% of Americans don't even have $1,000 saved up is awful. And many of that are people who make $100,000+ a year.
Yeah, plus taxes, $120,000 really isn't as much as people think it is. I know I lose 40%+ of my income to that. If someone is really that snobbish at that level, then more power to em.
I don't understand how that's even possible with all the deductions available. I barely paid 10% in fed income taxes and 4% in state income taxes last year.
I don't understand how that's even possible with all the deductions available. I barely paid 10% in fed income taxes and 4% in state income taxes last year.
Single
No kids
Don't own my own home
"High" income
Will do it. Most of the deductions for the average person come from being married, having kids, and owning their own home. My deductions come in the form of business expenses (my 2nd job, I'm 1099'd and I charge things like mileage, etc.), investment deductions (tax loss harvesting is helpful).
40% is an exaggeration though. More than 30% though. If I made that much money, I wouldn't be on here lol.
Damn now I'm starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob who swears all my money goes to taxes instead of my own bad decisions.
Single
No kids
Don't own my own home
"High" income
Will do it. Most of the deductions for the average person come from being married, having kids, and owning their own home. My deductions come in the form of business expenses (my 2nd job, I'm 1099'd and I charge things like mileage, etc.), investment deductions (tax loss harvesting is helpful).
40% is an exaggeration though. More than 30% though. If I made that much money, I wouldn't be on here lol.
Damn now I'm starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob who swears all my money goes to taxes instead of my own bad decisions.
You'd probably feel better about it if taxes were a lot easier to do (essentially done for you), you didn't have that sinking suspicion that people making a lot more are paying a lot less in taxes, and the taxes you did pay provided for a lot better standard of living for yourself and those around you.
Not necessarily wealthy, but highly educated and highly skilled. The people who left in the 80s, 90s and 00s were just that--those who moved in to replace them were not, and that accelerated LA losing it's edge in tech, aerospace, finance etc.
Not necessarily wealthy, but highly educated and highly skilled. The people who left in the 80s, 90s and 00s were just that--those who moved in to replace them were not, and that accelerated LA losing it's edge in tech, aerospace, finance etc.
Being highly educated =/= high income. Often, yes. But not always. LA still has some of the best universities in the world. The Bay might be one ranking higher than LA on university quality, but LA is still. Good. And for which city attracts the Ivy Grads and STEM workers, obviously the Bay is going to shine there. Its entire economy is STEM-based. In LA, it's more diverse with a heavy emphasis on artistry. If LA got more expensive, there would be even fewer people moving to LA to make their dreams come true in the entertainment/design world. And as a native Angeleno, I hate that crowd for the most part and I avoid where they gather (except for DTLA). However, if we had fewer and fewer people moving to LA to become famous artists (in whatever category they specialize in), the US would lose quite a bit of culture and so would the world.
So no, LA doesn't shine on incomes and they could be better. I mean even white collar non-STEM jobs seem to pay less in LA compared to similar cities like SF, Chicago, NYC, Boston, DC. But it's wrong to suggest that LA would be better off if there were more rich people because it would lose even more its immigrant culture (SF is going through this rapidly rn). It would lose even more of its artistry (SF is going through this rapidly rn and many SF artists are making the move south to LA). TBH, I think entertainment industry competition will prove to be good for LA. It held a monopoly on the industry for decades. Recently, Atlanta, Vancouver, and others have been giving LA some stiff competition for filming and Nashville is emerging as a music hub, albeit still more for country ATM. But if LA learns that it's not the only city that can film a movie or record a musician, maybe it'll start valuing every single employee that keeps the studios running. They often treat support staff and non-celebrity employees like absolute trash. They're severely underpaid as well. If Atlanta, Vancouver, and others can continue expanding their entertainment presence, and if those locations value their employees more, Hollywood will need to change its game and that may hopefully end with these hardworking, highly educated Angelenos being paid a fair wage. Many people attend excellent universities for writing/filming/music/acting/etc. and are simply just underpaid and undervalued. They're not attending Ivies, but they're attending some of the top universities in the country, as well as highly-regarded art schools that may not have national recognition, but are seen as tops for their industry.
Being highly educated =/= high income. Often, yes. But not always. LA still has some of the best universities in the world. The Bay might be one ranking higher than LA on university quality, but LA is still. Good. And for which city attracts the Ivy Grads and STEM workers, obviously the Bay is going to shine there. Its entire economy is STEM-based. In LA, it's more diverse with a heavy emphasis on artistry. If LA got more expensive, there would be even fewer people moving to LA to make their dreams come true in the entertainment/design world. And as a native Angeleno, I hate that crowd for the most part and I avoid where they gather (except for DTLA). However, if we had fewer and fewer people moving to LA to become famous artists (in whatever category they specialize in), the US would lose quite a bit of culture and so would the world.
So no, LA doesn't shine on incomes and they could be better. I mean even white collar non-STEM jobs seem to pay less in LA compared to similar cities like SF, Chicago, NYC, Boston, DC. But it's wrong to suggest that LA would be better off if there were more rich people because it would lose even more its immigrant culture (SF is going through this rapidly rn). It would lose even more of its artistry (SF is going through this rapidly rn and many SF artists are making the move south to LA). TBH, I think entertainment industry competition will prove to be good for LA. It held a monopoly on the industry for decades. Recently, Atlanta, Vancouver, and others have been giving LA some stiff competition for filming and Nashville is emerging as a music hub, albeit still more for country ATM. But if LA learns that it's not the only city that can film a movie or record a musician, maybe it'll start valuing every single employee that keeps the studios running. They often treat support staff and non-celebrity employees like absolute trash. They're severely underpaid as well. If Atlanta, Vancouver, and others can continue expanding their entertainment presence, and if those locations value their employees more, Hollywood will need to change its game and that may hopefully end with these hardworking, highly educated Angelenos being paid a fair wage. Many people attend excellent universities for writing/filming/music/acting/etc. and are simply just underpaid and undervalued. They're not attending Ivies, but they're attending some of the top universities in the country, as well as highly-regarded art schools that may not have national recognition, but are seen as tops for their industry.
You are way too emotional about this. LA suffered a huge talent exodus for 30 years and the area is playing catch up vs the Bay Area in this regard, that's not an opinion. No need to get all in your feelings about it.
While I became acclimated to a warm weather climate following a job transfer to SoCal (never lived in LA proper but spent quite a bit of time there—often on weekends for more excitement than OC offered), SF/Marin—city and mentality of the people—was much easier for this NY’er to adapt to and I was really sad to leave the area. SoCal just felt far more transient and/or “resort-ish” to me, almost “Groundhog Day” like—even though I lived there for a much longer period of time.
I don’t know how long ago you were in SF, but I think the “transient-ness” roles have reversed. The bay area has become pretty much America's college town for wealth building. You go there, you make a lot of money, but then you leave after 5-10 years. There's more of an investment locals have in "building" LA, than locals have in building SF, other than both sharing a growing animosity and desperation for change in housing costs and homelessness. But SF today feels almost cultureless. Tech workers and the established wealth know they'll eventually leave so there’s no need to contribute to the area's cultural life. And it’s also the nature of people in tech. They’re not a cultured crowd. And I don’t think people fully comprehend just how monopolised the bay area is by the tech industry.
I Tech workers and the established wealth know they'll eventually leave...
This is preposterous lol
San Francisco has the most multi generational wealth on the west coast by far. Why on earth would established families worth hundreds of millions if not billions pack up and leave SF? Fyi: that's not happening. At all.
You might be confusing the news of a bay area person buying a beach house in LA with actually moving there.
Quote:
so there’s no need to contribute to the area's cultural life. And it’s also the nature of people in tech. They’re not a cultured crowd.
Haha The city was already packed with rich people who endowed the arts for 100+ years before tech ever came along.
You dont know anything about SF, clearly.
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.
