[KH02]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

NOPE. just broke and unfortunately, you don't see how fortunate you are

Your mother? If she's a SINGLE person with no children living at home, then YEAH of course she could do a lot with the income....but with two young children to support and bills to pay it wouldn't be much. Trust me.

I cant wait until you get out into the big world...Your in for a disapointment on how far money goes.

the whole own your home thing... NOPE don't own one, we rent. So no american dream here. Guess we fail that part of your 125 is rich theory.

[Uconn97]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

do you know what my mother can do with $125,000? To be rich is to live comfortably. A family that makes money like that can afford to build their own house within 10 years in an area like wolcott, watertown or prospect. To own ur own home is to be rich; its the american dream.

well, clearly thats your definition of rich. Owning a home these days for some people actually means that they are poor

[JunieBJones]

Originally Posted by KH02

Your mother? If she's a SINGLE person with no children living at home, then YEAH of course she could do a lot with the income....but with two young children to support and bills to pay it wouldn't be much. Trust me.

I cant wait until you get out into the big world...Your in for a disapointment on how far money goes.

the whole own your home thing... NOPE don't own one, we rent. So no american dream here. Guess we fail that part of your 125 is rich theory.

People spend their money in different ways. I have friends that just got married (mid-20s) and probably make a combined income of at least $125,000 that whine that they never have money...but they just moved into a brand new house, have iPhones, Wiis, digital cable with DVR and all those goodies, vacation once or twice a year, and go out to eat at least once or twice a week. So maybe things are tight for them because they've decided they want (or need) these things that other people don't consider necessities. My parents continued to support my brother and me when we graduated college and while I was attending grad school full-time and that was on my dad's retirement income, which was half of what he made when we were growing up. He was still able to put money away every check. So like I said...people have different priorities for for their income.

[KH02]

I do realize people use their money in different ways. But After taxes and med ins our monthly pay isn't as high has you would think. Then their is paying for preschool and rent. Heat and elect and cable and a home phone. Then their is gas to and from work and our car insurance and car taxes and then our credit card bills (not huge payments but still) then my DH still has school loans he's paying off. Then clothing for the kids since they grow out of it seasonally, though we try to buy cheaper of craigslist etc, and copay for dr visits which is usually at least another 50 a month. Food is about 400 or more a month in and of itself.

We dont have any video game systems or Iphones or DVR or take vacations every year...so you can still not have lots of goodies and make that much. It goes quick. And like i said we dont own a home either or have a extravagant one. Its a 3 bed 2 bath ranch with very little yard and it's an older home that needs alot of work, but our rent was cheaper because of it.

So i realize people spend money differently but i would NEVER consider that "wealthy"
Maybe more like 400K plus at least in CT.

[goldenband]

There are some very interesting subtexts to this thread, and one of the most interesting is, to me, the differing ways that Democrats and Republicans tend to view human nature. Democrats always take a rap for allegedly being head-in-the-clouds and starry-eyed, but I think the opposite is true -- I find that the Democratic position is far more pragmatic, and the Republican is far more idealistic.

In other words, if you believe that:

- human nature is basically good;
- the world (or God), and the market, rewards those who work hard and think of the long term;
- that people who are highly economically successful are often good, hard-working people;
- and that those who work hard and earn a lot of money will share it voluntarily with their neighbors, through consumption and charity;

then it makes sense that you would vote Republican, for trickle-down economics, and for a system in which provisions for the common good are solely addressed through voluntary means.

On the other hand, if you believe that:

- human nature is fickle at best, amoral at worst;
- the world, and the market, will frequently reward people who lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, and who sabotage the long-term in favor of the short term, and that God is, for all intents and purposes, either absent or indifferent to all this;
- people who are highly economically successful are often liars and swindlers, and are all too often the worst, rather than the best, of humankind;
- and that people are generally very greedy, and will often say that they're going to be generous and do their part to help, but almost never follow through;

then it would make sense that you would vote Democrat, and for a system in which provisions for the common good are addressed through mandatory means.

I personally tend more towards the latter; I think people are in some ways basically good, but I think they're very fallible -- and more to the point, I think we live in a world which rewards sociopathy, and worships power and wealth. So when I read something like this:

Originally Posted by KH02

Most people I know who make over 250K have earned it, and deserve to keep it. Not to help out a bunch of people who want to take instead of earn.

I can't help but wonder how many of the "people you know who make over 250K" are the kind of charming, well-mannered lizard-like sociopaths one finds throughout financial centers, like Greenwich, CT: great table manners, dashing good looks, exquisite taste in just about everything -- and a willingness to throw you off the nearest cliff (or worse) without hesitation, if it'd make them an extra 100k that year.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I was reading an interview with the cult film director Nathan Schiff, and he tells a wonderful (and chilling) tale of his days waiting on the super-rich:

PG: Between 1980 and 1985, you mentioned that you were working at a hotel, and you intimated on the DVD that there were some pretty unpleasant people that you had to deal with there, and that inspired TDCTGA. So what was going on?
NS: You notice how each film became more and more violent? That’s because I was becoming more and more angry—unconsciously—and it was coming out in the movies.
PG: Who were the people that you were interacting with?
NS: They were just like Gordon Gekko (from Wall Street), but an army of them, male and female. Imagine female Gordon Gekkos—young, female Gordon Gekkos.
PG: What was your job at the hotel?
NS: Basically, I worked in the main office with the manager of the hotel, who was also working with her brother who was in real estate. She was a real estate mogul, and managing this giant hotel was like a side thing.
PG: So you got to see the bad side of business.
NS: Oh, man…I tell you. It was incredible—it was like a cartoon or something that Hollywood had made up to make people in business look evil. And I’m not saying that all business people are like that, but a good portion of them are. Most people who are enormously successful—multi-millionaires and billionaires—are cutthroat. That’s how they got where they are. So I saw so much of this going on—they managed stores, and people who couldn’t pay the rent on time because times were tough, they’d come down on them. And they would laugh about it after they’d hang up the phone and say, “What’s for lunch?” And I knew that the person on the other end was miserable and terrified that their business was going to close. It was like “I’m superior, and this person is inferior, so they deserve exactly what they’re getting.” And they would never pay their bills, like their phone bills and such. And I understood why they did that. The longer they could hold out paying every tiny bill until they were warned with collection, the more interest they would earn.

Every time I see someone insist that most rich people got that way through hard work and virtue, I think of stories like this, and of all the times I've seen evidence to the contrary, and I laugh.

Finally, I'm amused by people who say that "125k is hardly anything, I'm barely getting by!", and list all their numerous expenses to justify themselves: health insurance, mortgages, and so on -- as if you're entitled to those things -- owning your own home, having health insurance -- things that my family often did without (and is still doing without).

Yet when other people complain that they can't afford those things, they accuse them of being lazy or profligate: "If I can't afford them, it's because of the evil government, but if you can't afford them, it's because you're a bad person", seems to be the message.

My parents raised me and my siblings (and there were a bunch of us) on an income that, some years, was less than 20k. Granted, the cost of living was lower then, and we didn't have health insurance or own our own home. But even now, they're making do on a very restricted income. As am I, to a lesser degree: my girlfriend and I live in one of the most expensive parts of the country, but we get by on less than 40k combined, quite easily in fact.

When I lived in CT, I went to graduate school, had a job (several jobs, in fact), car, and a nice apartment, and did it on much less than 20k per year. I had to pinch pennies, but so what? Many people I knew there were making well under 30k and surviving; it wasn't always easy, but it could certainly be done.

125k is a hell of a lot of money, and I beg to differ that it wouldn't go far "anywhere in the Northeast": it would go quite far in New Hampshire, or Vermont. Really, it would go pretty far in most of the Northeast, actually -- anywhere but the Boston area or western Connecticut.

So I still say that, if you can't make it comfortably on 125k of take-home pay, I cordially invite you to trade places with my parents, who raised a family for umpteen years on one-fifth of that, and who continue to live on about that much (25k, maybe less) with a son still at home. My mother, who's unbelievably thrifty and savvy, could practically buy her own island if you gave her 125k/year to work with.

I suspect, after walking some miles in their shoes, you'll soon find out that either you've got some serious financial planning issues, or you need to get out of Connecticut, because what you're really saying is "I can't live the lifestyle I want, while living in one of the most affluent parts of the country, despite the fact that I make more than 97% of the country". And, no offense, but boo-hoo-hoo -- just about everyone has it harder than you, and I think a little humility about that is in order.

[KH02]

"- the world, and the market, will frequently reward people who lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, and who sabotage the long-term in favor of the short term, and that God is, for all intents and purposes, either absent or indifferent to all this;"

So democrats CAN believe rich people lie and steal their way to the top yet believe no people lie cheat or steal to NOT have to work and use the system... PLEASE.

My parents make 250 a year and they raised 4 children while my father started his own business they were penny pinching back then as well, but now his business has only grown and gotten bigger. He has invested 25 years into his career before he started making decent money and they dont buy name brand clothing or live in a palace but a small 1400 sq foot home.

So dont assume all "rich" people as you put it are like those living in Greenwich. You cannot compare anyone in the state to them for they make WELL more then 250 a year to afford to live their.

And those are showy people. I am from a modest family who aren't showy at all.

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by KH02

So democrats CAN believe rich people lie and steal their way to the top yet believe no people lie cheat or steal to NOT have to work and use the system... PLEASE.

If what you're saying is that I think people don't cheat the welfare system -- the answer is: of course people cheat the welfare system.

But the costs (moral, financial, and practical) of having no welfare system are, in my opinion, worse than the costs of having cheaters. In other words, I'd rather have cheaters than people going hungry. It's their conscience, not mine. I really don't care about the cheaters; it doesn't keep me up at night -- whereas the thought of little kids being brain-damaged because their parents can't afford to feed them anything but mac-and-cheese, or because they live in a ghetto apartment covered with lead paint, does.

Also, not being "showy" about your money is all well and good, but it doesn't change the reality that you enjoy something that 97% of people don't -- and you have to look at yourself in the mirror and ask how much of that is due to your own hard work, and how much is due to things other people have done for you. That's not a question I can answer, but it'll tell you a lot about what you're "entitled" to and what you're just plain lucky to have.

[Uconn97]

goldenband - good post. I'll add that I only have 10 years of corporate experience, but very few actual "hard workers" move up as fast as the "butt-kissers" do, or those who say "All the right things" in meetings. or those who "know the right people". Those aren't neccessarily bad things (some might call it strategy), but please don't tell me that ALL the people who make a lot of money are ALL hard workers because thats a crock of....

[KH02]

Save your Boo HOO ing for some people with their hand out.

I dont mind helping people who need genuinely need it (due to medical exp unforeseen, or family tragedy, or being widowed etc) until they can get back on their feet, but i do not like to help others who abuse it by simply NOT working so they can continue receiving help, or continue to have an exorbitant number of children even though they cant afford the ones they have...it's common sense.

Fact is I'd rather personally send my money to a donation of my choice or person in need that i meet along the way. Rather then throwing into a big pot and letting the govt choose where our hard earned money goes...

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by KH02

Fact is I'd rather personally send my money to a donation of my choice or person in need that i meet along the way. Rather then throwing into a big pot and letting the govt choose where our hard earned money goes...

That sounds all very well and good, but it assumes that your judgment, character, and sense of responsibility are all trustworthy. What if they're not?