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

I agree with the OP wrote:

my wife and I live in Chicago and make $210,000/year. We had about $160k in savings as of last month.

We're 29 years old with a baby on the way. Meaning she will stop working when the baby comes. I make approximately $150,000/year.

We just bought a $500k house. Our expenses:

Mortgage/Taxes = $2,500

Cars (2) = $600/mo

Insurance = $200

Health Clubs = $200

Student Loans = $300

Gas/Electric = $100

Cable = $100

So we're at $4,000 in expenses right off the bat. Then take into account food and basic living expenses. Thats another $1,000 at least.

So our $150,000 doesnt go nearly as far as most people think. We went from having a lot of money (saving about $6k-$7k per month) to basically being paycheck to paycheck.

What are your career fields?

There are people who truly work their asses off and make terrible money. I live in a poor area and I have many friends in this situation. I am all for helping these people out. However, there is a huge fraction of people who screwed around in high school (i'm talking like 95% of my 2500 person school) and I'm sorry but most of these people dug their own graves into poverty. My friends were in this situation. Some tried to turn it around (and they did!) and others didn't care.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of lazy people out there who are a complete drain on the economy, and it shouldn't be my responsibility to support their laziness. If you don't think the majority of society is inherently lazy, then you haven't been around enough.

Btw single life on that salary is nice for sure. But wait until you have a family and kids to put through college and then you'll start caring.

I agree with the OP wrote:

my wife and I live in Chicago and make $210,000/year. We had about $160k in savings as of last month.

We're 29 years old with a baby on the way. Meaning she will stop working when the baby comes. I make approximately $150,000/year.

We just bought a $500k house. Our expenses:

Mortgage/Taxes = $2,500

Cars (2) = $600/mo

Insurance = $200

Health Clubs = $200

Student Loans = $300

Gas/Electric = $100

Cable = $100

So we're at $4,000 in expenses right off the bat. Then take into account food and basic living expenses. Thats another $1,000 at least.

So our $150,000 doesnt go nearly as far as most people think. We went from having a lot of money (saving about $6k-$7k per month) to basically being paycheck to paycheck.

You didn't add much to this thread. I make 43k per year and have 3 kids.

Mortgage= $900

Cars (2) = paid for

Insurance = I have cash for a car if needed so only carry liability $35

Health Club = I run outside, even in snow

Student loans = I worked through college

Gas/electric = you got me beat, winter is $200

Cable = why watch that trash $0

I feed those three kids well on about $400 per month. People are not underestimating how far $150k will go. We all live in different situations, Chicago is more expensive than where I live, but you can move. We can all change our lifestyles if we choose. I don't agree that the government is entitled to anyone's money. I would only go along with raising taxes to address the budget if the government reins in spending as well. It will take both and I would gladly pay to help, so long as the money is going to the right places.

k24 wrote:

Btw single life on that salary is nice for sure. But wait until you have a family and kids to put through college and then you'll start caring.

Explain to me how the Russom Keflezighi was able to bring his wife and nine children to the US on a laborer's pay, and raise them in San Diego, with all of his adult children holding, "seven undergraduate degrees, an MBA, a MD, a JD, a Stanford University graduate," and having two more at UCSD and UC Berkeley.

What does it say that Russom and his wife did that on his modest earnings, coming here with little knowledge of English, and yet you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to have one child?

At $250,000 you're making loads more money nearly everyone else. You aren't struggling, not compared to what most of the country is doing, even though you may think you are. Do you really expect sympathy from people making 20-50% of your salary?

Definitely, I'd love to cut the defense budget. And I think that we probably all need to pay higher taxes given the trillions we've tossed away on our stupid wars, but I think that like what happens in most other post-industrial countries, the taxing should be heavier on those making the most. And while I know there are many people richer than you, I do think that you're rich.

The 36% is a MARGINAL tax rate dumb@ss. You don't pay it on your entire income, just on the amount that is in that bracket. Godd@mn --- do you pay taxes at all? $800 is correct.

Watch your language or you will be banned from LRC dingbat.

Sorry, i should have been a little more clear.

We live in the heart of the city in a condo. There is something to be said about quality of life. Could we buy a mansion in Joliet for $250k, yes. Would we rather live in a $500k condo in Lincoln Park that's only 1500sqft, absolutely.

I'm in sales, she's a teacher.

We're not technically paycheck to paycheck, but we're definitely not saving $7k a month anymore. I would argue that we're extremely good with money.

True statements about declaring dependents and not renting. We used to pay $2,100 to live in a condo in LP that's probably about a $300k place.

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just saying that, depending on where you live, $250k (or in my case $150k) isn't as much as some would think.

In Chicago, or any NICE surrounding suburb, $250k with kids, college education, etc. would be next to nothing. The Nice burbs taxes' are about $24,000/year. So $2k of your monthly income goes to just taxes. Then you're paying $50k+ a year in college education. Insane, I couldn't imagine that.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

k24 wrote:

Btw single life on that salary is nice for sure. But wait until you have a family and kids to put through college and then you'll start caring.

Explain to me how the Russom Keflezighi was able to bring his wife and nine children to the US on a laborer's pay, and raise them in San Diego, with all of his adult children holding, "seven undergraduate degrees, an MBA, a MD, a JD, a Stanford University graduate," and having two more at UCSD and UC Berkeley.

What does it say that Russom and his wife did that on his modest earnings, coming here with little knowledge of English, and yet you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to have one child?

Thats pretty awesome but there is something called scholarships. People who are broke can usually send their kids to college for free or dirt cheap.

Economic Effects of Fiscal Tightening, CBO Projections

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43694

Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt Growth?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/taxes/

k24 wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Explain to me how the Russom Keflezighi was able to bring his wife and nine children to the US on a laborer's pay, and raise them in San Diego, with all of his adult children holding, "seven undergraduate degrees, an MBA, a MD, a JD, a Stanford University graduate," and having two more at UCSD and UC Berkeley.

What does it say that Russom and his wife did that on his modest earnings, coming here with little knowledge of English, and yet you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to have one child?

Thats pretty awesome but there is something called scholarships. People who are broke can usually send their kids to college for free or dirt cheap.

Then why is the median household income among Stanford students $125,000 per year, and not something much lower if students from lower income households have an easier time paying for college?

And how could the Keflezighi's even manage to raise children that were capable of admission to those universities if they weren't making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year? Your earlier quote suggests that if Russom and his wife cared about their kids, they would have made more money to provide better opportunities for them.

No, that level of income should NEVER be considered "next to nothing". You decided to spend your money on those unnecessary things. And that's fine, but those were your choices. It's like complaining that you don't have that much money because you have to pay for all of your corvettes.

No one is forcing you to live in that neighborhood. No one is forcing those parents to pay for their kid's college.

You're choosing to spend your money on things just like those NBA players do. And again, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't ever claim that $150k or $250k is not a lot of money. You have more disposable income than most people's entire salaries.

Cmon now, you didn't Earn that money! Blacks need that money! There was slavery hundreds of years ago and you need to feel guilty about it!! Cough up your money whitey, or blacks will beat it out of you!!!

I agree with you. Again, not complaining. Just trying to stick up for the OP.

Quality of Life is a big deal. I have friends from college that live in small towns in Indiana making $40,000/year and living like kings.

I agree with the OP wrote:

I agree with you. Again, not complaining. Just trying to stick up for the OP.

Quality of Life is a big deal. I have friends from college that live in small towns in Indiana making $40,000/year and living like kings.

That's even more reason to NOT stick up for the OP. No one making that much money needs to be stuck up for. That's what is being missed here.

Not a single poster has provided a troll rating yet.

You people disgust me.

4 years of active duty military would have paid for your children's cars and college, plus added character and contributed to the nation. I would have loved to been handed a car and an education like your kids but I'm sure I wouldn't be as grateful for it.

They have money management classes on base for military families making less than $40k a year, I can see if I can get you a seat...

Happy Veterans Day.

You and "Don't tax the rich" just can't quit with the republican math. Please get out of the bubble and look at hard cold facts.

(1) I'll repeat an earlier post I made and others made that could not get through your bubble but maybe it will this time. Only the income that you earn over $250,000 is taxed at the higher rate. So if you earn $250,050, only $50 of that income will be taxed at a higher rate. Now don't you feel silly whining about that?

(2) There was another president who was an excellent businessman in the private sector before he became president. He believed in lower taxes for the wealthy. He reduced taxes on the very wealthy from 77% to 7%. He also believed the business and Wall Street should not be encumbered by regulation. His name was Calvin Coolidge. Do you know the result of his econmoic policies?

Smooth Daddy wrote:

Higher taxes on the wealthy will affect everyone adversely. All other factors being equal, there will be less capital formation, less business investment and growth, lower profits (affects middle-class shareholders), higher natural interest rates, fewer jobs, fewer products and services and less spending. These are inevitable consequences of taxation.[/quote]

Reality Checker wrote:

Paying an extra 3% on their AGI over $250k is hardly "shoulder(ing) the burden of the country's enormous debt".

Actually it would be an extra 3% on taxable income, not AGI. Once you remove personal exemptions for the entire family and the standard deduction his taxable income is probably closer to $225,000. So the OP gets to keep $25,000 without taxes just because he has a big family....I'm sure he also has pre-tax retirement savings, medical insurance, and plenty of itemized deductions, so his taxable income is likely even lower. He probably wouldn't be affected by tax increases on the "rich" very much.

It's obvious this is a troll trying to make a point. The funny part is that he's doing a terrible job. Anyone who knows even a little bit about income taxes (there seem to be plenty of us on this thread) knows this person's take-home income would barely change...and any increase would be easily bearable by someone whose gross salary is so high.