Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › I think this just kinda belongs on here
- This topic has 90 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by raptorduck.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 23, 2008 at 7:03 AM #193165April 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM #193705FearfulParticipant
One criteria to me was: If you do not have to work, that is, if you can live on risk-free interest without spending the principal. It was a bit of a slap to realize that real returns, let alone after tax real returns, are currently negative. So much for that theory.
April 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM #193752FearfulParticipantOne criteria to me was: If you do not have to work, that is, if you can live on risk-free interest without spending the principal. It was a bit of a slap to realize that real returns, let alone after tax real returns, are currently negative. So much for that theory.
April 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM #193691FearfulParticipantOne criteria to me was: If you do not have to work, that is, if you can live on risk-free interest without spending the principal. It was a bit of a slap to realize that real returns, let alone after tax real returns, are currently negative. So much for that theory.
April 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM #193662FearfulParticipantOne criteria to me was: If you do not have to work, that is, if you can live on risk-free interest without spending the principal. It was a bit of a slap to realize that real returns, let alone after tax real returns, are currently negative. So much for that theory.
April 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM #193633FearfulParticipantOne criteria to me was: If you do not have to work, that is, if you can live on risk-free interest without spending the principal. It was a bit of a slap to realize that real returns, let alone after tax real returns, are currently negative. So much for that theory.
April 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM #193698DWCAPParticipantI think the point here is that the definition of “rich” has changed. The Gov uses the top 7% of income (i think). This puts the cut off well into the #8 middle middle class according to Raptorduck. The Democrats seem to define it as any HH making up to 250k. Now Raptor doesnt break it down like that in those stratifications, but it is well into even his “upper crust” above the #7 Upper middle class making up to 150k or so. Raptors numbers are also per individual, so maybe that expalains some of the difference.
The startaification of our country really is amazing. 250k (the middle class income cut off for Democrats) in CA or NY is enough money to finance a “wealthy” lifestyle but maybe not much more. In my families hometown of St. James Minnesota, it would prob make you the wealthest man in the tri-county area.
April 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM #193668DWCAPParticipantI think the point here is that the definition of “rich” has changed. The Gov uses the top 7% of income (i think). This puts the cut off well into the #8 middle middle class according to Raptorduck. The Democrats seem to define it as any HH making up to 250k. Now Raptor doesnt break it down like that in those stratifications, but it is well into even his “upper crust” above the #7 Upper middle class making up to 150k or so. Raptors numbers are also per individual, so maybe that expalains some of the difference.
The startaification of our country really is amazing. 250k (the middle class income cut off for Democrats) in CA or NY is enough money to finance a “wealthy” lifestyle but maybe not much more. In my families hometown of St. James Minnesota, it would prob make you the wealthest man in the tri-county area.
April 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM #193727DWCAPParticipantI think the point here is that the definition of “rich” has changed. The Gov uses the top 7% of income (i think). This puts the cut off well into the #8 middle middle class according to Raptorduck. The Democrats seem to define it as any HH making up to 250k. Now Raptor doesnt break it down like that in those stratifications, but it is well into even his “upper crust” above the #7 Upper middle class making up to 150k or so. Raptors numbers are also per individual, so maybe that expalains some of the difference.
The startaification of our country really is amazing. 250k (the middle class income cut off for Democrats) in CA or NY is enough money to finance a “wealthy” lifestyle but maybe not much more. In my families hometown of St. James Minnesota, it would prob make you the wealthest man in the tri-county area.
April 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM #193741DWCAPParticipantI think the point here is that the definition of “rich” has changed. The Gov uses the top 7% of income (i think). This puts the cut off well into the #8 middle middle class according to Raptorduck. The Democrats seem to define it as any HH making up to 250k. Now Raptor doesnt break it down like that in those stratifications, but it is well into even his “upper crust” above the #7 Upper middle class making up to 150k or so. Raptors numbers are also per individual, so maybe that expalains some of the difference.
The startaification of our country really is amazing. 250k (the middle class income cut off for Democrats) in CA or NY is enough money to finance a “wealthy” lifestyle but maybe not much more. In my families hometown of St. James Minnesota, it would prob make you the wealthest man in the tri-county area.
April 24, 2008 at 9:15 AM #193788DWCAPParticipantI think the point here is that the definition of “rich” has changed. The Gov uses the top 7% of income (i think). This puts the cut off well into the #8 middle middle class according to Raptorduck. The Democrats seem to define it as any HH making up to 250k. Now Raptor doesnt break it down like that in those stratifications, but it is well into even his “upper crust” above the #7 Upper middle class making up to 150k or so. Raptors numbers are also per individual, so maybe that expalains some of the difference.
The startaification of our country really is amazing. 250k (the middle class income cut off for Democrats) in CA or NY is enough money to finance a “wealthy” lifestyle but maybe not much more. In my families hometown of St. James Minnesota, it would prob make you the wealthest man in the tri-county area.
April 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM #193978raptorduckParticipantFearful. That is what I was thinking about finanical independence. If you have enough money to live off the interest, you don’t need a job. Even 1% interest per year on $20 million is the same as a $200k/yr job, inflation notwithstanding. That means that you live on the interest though and leave the $20M alone other than the decrease in its value over time if you are getting such low interest.
April 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM #194008raptorduckParticipantFearful. That is what I was thinking about finanical independence. If you have enough money to live off the interest, you don’t need a job. Even 1% interest per year on $20 million is the same as a $200k/yr job, inflation notwithstanding. That means that you live on the interest though and leave the $20M alone other than the decrease in its value over time if you are getting such low interest.
April 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM #194034raptorduckParticipantFearful. That is what I was thinking about finanical independence. If you have enough money to live off the interest, you don’t need a job. Even 1% interest per year on $20 million is the same as a $200k/yr job, inflation notwithstanding. That means that you live on the interest though and leave the $20M alone other than the decrease in its value over time if you are getting such low interest.
April 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM #194049raptorduckParticipantFearful. That is what I was thinking about finanical independence. If you have enough money to live off the interest, you don’t need a job. Even 1% interest per year on $20 million is the same as a $200k/yr job, inflation notwithstanding. That means that you live on the interest though and leave the $20M alone other than the decrease in its value over time if you are getting such low interest.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.