We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

Hilarious wrote:

Do you think the bottom 20% are going to sit around being sad when life begins to suck royally? No, they are going to grab some damn clubs and come looking for their share.

Especially with the political rhetoric and class warfare expressed by certain politicians meant to incite.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

]

The problem is that everyone wants those programs but they don't want to pay for them. It's a symptom of the problem the US has with education.

Jesus Christ you have got to be the most regarded/delusional liberal fucknugget we've seen yet. You really think that if we piss more money down the toilet that is public education, people would embrace paying higher taxes? You are a prime example of the kind of idiocy that progressive education brings about.

abolish liberal ignorance wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

]

The problem is that everyone wants those programs but they don't want to pay for them. It's a symptom of the problem the US has with education.

Jesus Christ you have got to be the most regarded/delusional liberal fucknugget we've seen yet. You really think that if we piss more money down the toilet that is public education, people would embrace paying higher taxes? You are a prime example of the kind of idiocy that progressive education brings about.

A prime example of the education problem in the US: poor reading comprehension.

The point I made was that virtually all Americans want all these government services but then don't support paying for them. Many also have no idea how their current tax burden compares to historical trends in the US or how it compares with what is common in the rest of the developed world.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

A prime example of the education problem in the US: poor reading comprehension.

You know what would fix that? "More money". Don't ask what we'll do with that money, or how it'll actually help, or what we've done with the billions of dollars we've already been given... we just need "more". Trust us.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Sagarin,

I'm genuinely interested in this because having read my fair share of threads here, I respect your posts as having thought behind them, even though I almost always disagree with their premises.

My question for you is this: what country or countries do you see as a model for the US to work towards, with respect to how the government collects and spends the money of its citizens?

I can tell you what we shouldn't work towards... Japan (we could be on our way if we keep up the QE-perpetuity without enacting real reform), most of Europe's failed model (even some Swedish towns are incentivizing their unemployed youth to find work in Norway), or anything resembling the former Soviet State and its counterparts. I like Singapore, Malaysia, some of the Baltic nations, and some of the emerging Latin countries, etc.

But, frankly, I think we should work toward what we used to be, the country our framers intended. Unfortunately, only austerity will pull us out of this hole, along with a wholesale reform of the tax code such that it's not overly regressive or progressive, whereby, the government squeezes out the private sector more and more. Ironically, Durden featured a timely guest piece on austerity this morning, that it's not a "quick" fix, but it is a fix.

From Dr. Lacy Van Hunt, "From both economic theory and historical experience the answer is clear; austerity is the solution to too much debt. McKinsey Global Institute examined 32 cases where extreme leverage caused financial crises since the 1930s. In 24, or 75% of these cases austerity was required, which McKinsey defines as a multi-year and sustained increase in the saving rate. Public and/or private borrowers took on too much debt because they lived beyond their means, or they consumed more than they earned. Thus, to reverse the problem spending had to be held below income, increasing the saving rate."

Now, it is true that both Finland and Sweden survived delevraging episodes most closely resembling ours in the 90s, and Sweden did recapitalize its banks WHILE RESTRUCTURING DEBT, something we should've instituted before the big bailout, but the key to the Nordic success story, besides vast amounts of natural resource wealth, is that the public sector delevered and SHARPLY. But, again, Sweden is struggling in certain areas, and that's not a model I feel we should emulate.

We need regulation, but it needs to be smart, not overreaching. We have many valuable natural resources that we can tap and we can pursue thorium nuclear energy, creating millions of jobs almost immediately. Unfortunately, we have spent so much of our political capital and capital capital frivolously. We never properly restructured our debt with TARP, and feckless fiscal and monetary policy will merely prolong the deleveraging episode, which I think has a minimum of five years to play itself out, IF we get everything right (we won't). The Unaffordable Care Act just may end up becoming the worst boondoggle and the best job killer yet.

gergd wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

A prime example of the education problem in the US: poor reading comprehension.

You know what would fix that? "More money". Don't ask what we'll do with that money, or how it'll actually help, or what we've done with the billions of dollars we've already been given... we just need "more". Trust us.

Everyone needs to read this as the page got flipped. Remember, Bill Clinton had a welfare to work program that was promptly repealed by Obama.

Thanks, Sagarin. I appreciate the response. Would I be wrong to surmise that you're not ideologically opposed to government services, like Finland's extensive welfare system, so long as it's not being paid for extensively with borrowed money?

I'm not ideologically opposed to some, efficient government services, not paid for with borrowed or printed money, with incentives for those receiving them to become more self-sufficient. Of course we need a safety net. The current problem we have is that the original intent of the safety net is no longer there, and safety nets have merely created the need for more safety nets. Nor am I opposed to SMART, not overzealous, regulation, restructuring of our debts, and a wholesale reform of our tax code and entitlements to promote growth. But, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

You are leaving out a lot of expenses idiot. Not to mention the avg rent for a one bedroom even in Washington Heights is $1455. Also most normal people have both internet and cable TV. And no having cable TV is not a luxury. So you need to change $80 for internet to $100 (Time warner has a one year deal for cable/internet/LAN Line). You also didn't list a cell phone bill. Everyone has a cell phone so add an additional $100. Monthly MTA pass is $104 but there is a good chance it will go up as much as $130 in a few months. Don't forget few apartments have washing machines in the apartment. Don't forget to add $20 a month for laundry and that is probably a gross under estimation.

So lets add this up with REAL costs:

Rent - 1455

Electric - 100

Internet/Cable - 100

MTA - 104

Cell Phone - 100

Laundry - 20

That is $1879 for basic costs. This leaves you with $1221 for all other costs and saving as you put it. But this is the most expensive city in the US so even the basics like groceries are overpriced.

Let's say someone spends $75 a week on groceries which is conservative estimate and also would take some very smart shopping, that would be $300 a month in groceries.

So now we are down to $921 a month. So you are left with 921 a month to go out occasionally, to eat, buy clothes, to buy all necessary items like toilet paper, tooth paste etc.

Let's say you went out to each lunch once a week and one dinner every two weeks. Let's say this was a $10 lunch (4 lunches total for $40) and a $30 dinner. Both very conservative estimates. And also let's say you went out with friends one night in the entire month. This would probably run you $50. This would then bring your total down to $801. This by the way is a pretty boring existence in NYC and really isn't reality. Who lives in NYC to sit in their apartment. More likely you would be going out more for meals and with friends so most likely this number of $120 would be double or even triple.

But let's say we are that super boring person who goes out ONCE a month and ONE dinner a month. Then let's say you spent $300 for clothes. You are now down to $501 a month. We haven't even discussed random expenses like the items needed like toilet paper, tooth paste, and all those items. For a guy this is reasonable but not as much for a woman. So let's aay it a boring dude. $50 a month in random expenses like this. Basically if you were the super boring guy at the end of the month you might have $400 - $450 to put into savings. If you went out more most likely this number would drop to probably $100 - $200 to put into savings. Not a lot at all.

These are all extremely conservative numbers. The point is you make it sound like you can live high on the hog in NYC for $50,000 a month which is ridiculous.

Post above is in response to this post:

Let's assume no public housing, and I'm making $50,000 and want to live in Manhattan. That's about $3000 per month after taxes.

$1200 - 1br apt rent in Washington Heights

$100 - electric (no gas)

$80 - internet

$100 - MTA monthly pass

That leaves $1500 for food, fun and savings. Very doable.

Or is Washington Heights too ghetto, since in 2011 there were only three Manhattan neighborhoods with better records on crime and personal safety?

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4899960&page=8#ixzz2DjVhIYxb

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

Then how do all of those millions making 50k a year in New York do it?

If they can do it why can't you?

$300 a month on cloths...hahahha you are joking right. Why would you need to be $300 of cloths each month.

Its really not the expensive...thousands and thousands of people do it and live very comfortable.

Lets clarify! wrote:

The point is you make it sound like you can live high on the hog in NYC for $50,000 a month which is ridiculous.

Show me where I made such an insinuation. I wrote a response to a someone's statement that it was nigh on impossible to survive in Manhattan on $50,000 per year.

Sagarin wrote:

I'm not ideologically opposed to some, efficient government services, not paid for with borrowed or printed money, with incentives for those receiving them to become more self-sufficient. Of course we need a safety net. The current problem we have is that the original intent of the safety net is no longer there, and safety nets have merely created the need for more safety nets. Nor am I opposed to SMART, not overzealous, regulation, restructuring of our debts, and a wholesale reform of our tax code and entitlements to promote growth. But, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

We're not so different.

Yeah it is that expensive. Of course people make do in NYC but a majority do not live in Manhattan. Instead they have long commutes from the Bronx, Queens or Staten Island. And the lower income indoviduals who do live in Mahattan either live in subsidized housing and rent stabilized housing if they are lucky enough.

$300 a month in clothing is really not as crazy as it sounds even shopping conservatively. If you are a runner, you need a new pair of shoes every other month which would run you anywhere from $70 - 120 a pair. Then you need running clothes and this stuff needs to be replaced occasionally.

Not everyone walks around in cheap clothes from Old Navy. If you have any fashion sense, $300 is not out of line. Even a pair of jeans on sale at Banana Republic costs $60-70. If you are a woman and need something stylish a pair of jeans can easily run $100 - 300. That is one clothing item. Clothes cost and $300 can be spent pretty damn fast.

Lets clarify! wrote:

$300 a month in clothing is really not as crazy as it sounds even shopping conservatively. If you are a runner, you need a new pair of shoes every other month which would run you anywhere from $70 - 120 a pair. Then you need running clothes and this stuff needs to be replaced occasionally.

Not everyone walks around in cheap clothes from Old Navy. If you have any fashion sense, $300 is not out of line. Even a pair of jeans on sale at Banana Republic costs $60-70. If you are a woman and need something stylish a pair of jeans can easily run $100 - 300. That is one clothing item. Clothes cost and $300 can be spent pretty damn fast.

Official troll. Pleas all stop responding to him.

Not a troll at all. I live in reality. You are seriously delusional if you think $300 a month on clothing is crazy. Have you ever dated a woman who is stylish. Clearly not. Clothing is not cheap and guess what most women like to shop.

I can see a guy spending less on clothing. Someone may not spend $300 every month. They may go a few months with no purchases but then go out and buy one crappy suit at JOS Bank for $300, a couple of dress shirts for $60, a couple of ties for $40 each and suddenly to get a few new dress cloths for work you have spent $500 easily.

Agreed, $300 is nothing for clothing. I just bought a new Patagonia jacket which put me back $280 bones, a new pair of new balance 1080s on sale for $99 and a new NB long sleeve top for $34. These were not extravagent purchases and this set me back $414 without trying.

Agreed wrote:

Agreed, $300 is nothing for clothing. I just bought a new Patagonia jacket which put me back $280 bones, a new pair of new balance 1080s on sale for $99 and a new NB long sleeve top for $34. These were not extravagent purchases and this set me back $414 without trying.

Yes, you need to do this every. single. month. That's not extravagant at all...

Idiot.