Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
ParticipantI find it difficult to believe that someone in the top 5% can honestly consider themselves “middle class” (note: I’m in the top 5% myself, so not griping about anyone making more than me).
It seems to me that if you’re going to break out the tiers into lower/middle/upper, middle should be in the MIDDLE. While I know a lot of people who make plenty of money have equivalent bills to pay (in most cases, expenses seem to rise to meet income), how much of that is really “middle class” stuff? As one example, I pay a LOT more in car loans than most people I’d think in the median 50% of the population. I clearly don’t need to – that 50% doesn’t lack transportation – they simply pay a lot less for it than I’m willing to.
I think a lot of people here are conflating the middle class with the majority of the wealthy or upper class by simply assuming “wealthy” means “doesn’t have to work a day for the rest of their lives to continue to own 5 cars and 3 houses”.
My personal opinion is that if you buy luxury car brands when they’re brand new (or 1-2 years old if you hate the new car depreciation), can afford to fully fund your retirement to the point where you’ll be able to maintain your standard of living purely on your investments alone and SSI will simply be “mad money” post retirement, can go on major vacations 1-2x per year, you’re probably wealthy (my situation).
If you drive used non-premium brands for the first half of your working career, and new non-premium brands during the back half of your career, are able to fund your retirement adequately enough that SSI will be needed, but will be enough, can do the occasional decent vacation once a year (but maybe only afford a really excellent vacation like a cruise or hawaii vacation once or twice a decade), etc, you’re probably middle class. Because that’s really the guy in the middle.
If you’re better off than 19 of 20 people that you meet on the street, you probably aren’t in the middle of anything. If you’re better off than 98 of 100 people that you meet, you’re definitely not.
ParticipantI find it difficult to believe that someone in the top 5% can honestly consider themselves “middle class” (note: I’m in the top 5% myself, so not griping about anyone making more than me).
It seems to me that if you’re going to break out the tiers into lower/middle/upper, middle should be in the MIDDLE. While I know a lot of people who make plenty of money have equivalent bills to pay (in most cases, expenses seem to rise to meet income), how much of that is really “middle class” stuff? As one example, I pay a LOT more in car loans than most people I’d think in the median 50% of the population. I clearly don’t need to – that 50% doesn’t lack transportation – they simply pay a lot less for it than I’m willing to.
I think a lot of people here are conflating the middle class with the majority of the wealthy or upper class by simply assuming “wealthy” means “doesn’t have to work a day for the rest of their lives to continue to own 5 cars and 3 houses”.
My personal opinion is that if you buy luxury car brands when they’re brand new (or 1-2 years old if you hate the new car depreciation), can afford to fully fund your retirement to the point where you’ll be able to maintain your standard of living purely on your investments alone and SSI will simply be “mad money” post retirement, can go on major vacations 1-2x per year, you’re probably wealthy (my situation).
If you drive used non-premium brands for the first half of your working career, and new non-premium brands during the back half of your career, are able to fund your retirement adequately enough that SSI will be needed, but will be enough, can do the occasional decent vacation once a year (but maybe only afford a really excellent vacation like a cruise or hawaii vacation once or twice a decade), etc, you’re probably middle class. Because that’s really the guy in the middle.
If you’re better off than 19 of 20 people that you meet on the street, you probably aren’t in the middle of anything. If you’re better off than 98 of 100 people that you meet, you’re definitely not.
ParticipantI find it difficult to believe that someone in the top 5% can honestly consider themselves “middle class” (note: I’m in the top 5% myself, so not griping about anyone making more than me).
It seems to me that if you’re going to break out the tiers into lower/middle/upper, middle should be in the MIDDLE. While I know a lot of people who make plenty of money have equivalent bills to pay (in most cases, expenses seem to rise to meet income), how much of that is really “middle class” stuff? As one example, I pay a LOT more in car loans than most people I’d think in the median 50% of the population. I clearly don’t need to – that 50% doesn’t lack transportation – they simply pay a lot less for it than I’m willing to.
I think a lot of people here are conflating the middle class with the majority of the wealthy or upper class by simply assuming “wealthy” means “doesn’t have to work a day for the rest of their lives to continue to own 5 cars and 3 houses”.
My personal opinion is that if you buy luxury car brands when they’re brand new (or 1-2 years old if you hate the new car depreciation), can afford to fully fund your retirement to the point where you’ll be able to maintain your standard of living purely on your investments alone and SSI will simply be “mad money” post retirement, can go on major vacations 1-2x per year, you’re probably wealthy (my situation).
If you drive used non-premium brands for the first half of your working career, and new non-premium brands during the back half of your career, are able to fund your retirement adequately enough that SSI will be needed, but will be enough, can do the occasional decent vacation once a year (but maybe only afford a really excellent vacation like a cruise or hawaii vacation once or twice a decade), etc, you’re probably middle class. Because that’s really the guy in the middle.
If you’re better off than 19 of 20 people that you meet on the street, you probably aren’t in the middle of anything. If you’re better off than 98 of 100 people that you meet, you’re definitely not.
ParticipantI find it difficult to believe that someone in the top 5% can honestly consider themselves “middle class” (note: I’m in the top 5% myself, so not griping about anyone making more than me).
It seems to me that if you’re going to break out the tiers into lower/middle/upper, middle should be in the MIDDLE. While I know a lot of people who make plenty of money have equivalent bills to pay (in most cases, expenses seem to rise to meet income), how much of that is really “middle class” stuff? As one example, I pay a LOT more in car loans than most people I’d think in the median 50% of the population. I clearly don’t need to – that 50% doesn’t lack transportation – they simply pay a lot less for it than I’m willing to.
I think a lot of people here are conflating the middle class with the majority of the wealthy or upper class by simply assuming “wealthy” means “doesn’t have to work a day for the rest of their lives to continue to own 5 cars and 3 houses”.
My personal opinion is that if you buy luxury car brands when they’re brand new (or 1-2 years old if you hate the new car depreciation), can afford to fully fund your retirement to the point where you’ll be able to maintain your standard of living purely on your investments alone and SSI will simply be “mad money” post retirement, can go on major vacations 1-2x per year, you’re probably wealthy (my situation).
If you drive used non-premium brands for the first half of your working career, and new non-premium brands during the back half of your career, are able to fund your retirement adequately enough that SSI will be needed, but will be enough, can do the occasional decent vacation once a year (but maybe only afford a really excellent vacation like a cruise or hawaii vacation once or twice a decade), etc, you’re probably middle class. Because that’s really the guy in the middle.
If you’re better off than 19 of 20 people that you meet on the street, you probably aren’t in the middle of anything. If you’re better off than 98 of 100 people that you meet, you’re definitely not.
ParticipantI find it difficult to believe that someone in the top 5% can honestly consider themselves “middle class” (note: I’m in the top 5% myself, so not griping about anyone making more than me).
It seems to me that if you’re going to break out the tiers into lower/middle/upper, middle should be in the MIDDLE. While I know a lot of people who make plenty of money have equivalent bills to pay (in most cases, expenses seem to rise to meet income), how much of that is really “middle class” stuff? As one example, I pay a LOT more in car loans than most people I’d think in the median 50% of the population. I clearly don’t need to – that 50% doesn’t lack transportation – they simply pay a lot less for it than I’m willing to.
I think a lot of people here are conflating the middle class with the majority of the wealthy or upper class by simply assuming “wealthy” means “doesn’t have to work a day for the rest of their lives to continue to own 5 cars and 3 houses”.
My personal opinion is that if you buy luxury car brands when they’re brand new (or 1-2 years old if you hate the new car depreciation), can afford to fully fund your retirement to the point where you’ll be able to maintain your standard of living purely on your investments alone and SSI will simply be “mad money” post retirement, can go on major vacations 1-2x per year, you’re probably wealthy (my situation).
If you drive used non-premium brands for the first half of your working career, and new non-premium brands during the back half of your career, are able to fund your retirement adequately enough that SSI will be needed, but will be enough, can do the occasional decent vacation once a year (but maybe only afford a really excellent vacation like a cruise or hawaii vacation once or twice a decade), etc, you’re probably middle class. Because that’s really the guy in the middle.
If you’re better off than 19 of 20 people that you meet on the street, you probably aren’t in the middle of anything. If you’re better off than 98 of 100 people that you meet, you’re definitely not.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: The problem here is you want to eat your cake and have it, too. When JFK (and, later, LBJ) pushed for a wider social safety net, the world and the US were very different places. The period from 1945 (WWII’s end) to about 1972, was an American Golden Age. We won’t ever see its like again. We had emerged virtually unscathed from WWII (when compared to Europe, England and Japan) and were dominant militarily, economically and politically. We had the ability to fund “guns and butter” programs (i.e. Vietnam AND the Great Society).
No more. We cannot argue about universal rights and expansion of programs when we can’t afford them. Its nuts. Yeah, I get you’re an Obama guy and I also get wanting your team to win (I coach football, remember?), but we’re pushing these programs when we have no real means to fund them and are getting way too close to the edge of the cliff for my liking, which was my point about many of the Tea Partyers having a valid point.
We need to get back on track with education, and infrastructure and REAL renewable energy programs. We need to cut defense, entitlements and the bailouts.[/quote]
Or, of course, we could restore some of the massive tax cuts given to the top 2-5% over the past 30 years.
Part of the reason why we had the ability to fund those “Guns and Butter” programs and don’t any more (in fact, an enormous part of the reason) is the simple fact that over the past 30 years we’ve cut taxes on the middle class just a little bit, while cutting taxes on the incredibly wealthy by an enormous amount (in the 50’s, as an example, a corporate titan’s top income tax bracket would have been more than double his bracket today, and his capital gains would’ve been taxed much higher than todays rates as well).
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: The problem here is you want to eat your cake and have it, too. When JFK (and, later, LBJ) pushed for a wider social safety net, the world and the US were very different places. The period from 1945 (WWII’s end) to about 1972, was an American Golden Age. We won’t ever see its like again. We had emerged virtually unscathed from WWII (when compared to Europe, England and Japan) and were dominant militarily, economically and politically. We had the ability to fund “guns and butter” programs (i.e. Vietnam AND the Great Society).
No more. We cannot argue about universal rights and expansion of programs when we can’t afford them. Its nuts. Yeah, I get you’re an Obama guy and I also get wanting your team to win (I coach football, remember?), but we’re pushing these programs when we have no real means to fund them and are getting way too close to the edge of the cliff for my liking, which was my point about many of the Tea Partyers having a valid point.
We need to get back on track with education, and infrastructure and REAL renewable energy programs. We need to cut defense, entitlements and the bailouts.[/quote]
Or, of course, we could restore some of the massive tax cuts given to the top 2-5% over the past 30 years.
Part of the reason why we had the ability to fund those “Guns and Butter” programs and don’t any more (in fact, an enormous part of the reason) is the simple fact that over the past 30 years we’ve cut taxes on the middle class just a little bit, while cutting taxes on the incredibly wealthy by an enormous amount (in the 50’s, as an example, a corporate titan’s top income tax bracket would have been more than double his bracket today, and his capital gains would’ve been taxed much higher than todays rates as well).
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: The problem here is you want to eat your cake and have it, too. When JFK (and, later, LBJ) pushed for a wider social safety net, the world and the US were very different places. The period from 1945 (WWII’s end) to about 1972, was an American Golden Age. We won’t ever see its like again. We had emerged virtually unscathed from WWII (when compared to Europe, England and Japan) and were dominant militarily, economically and politically. We had the ability to fund “guns and butter” programs (i.e. Vietnam AND the Great Society).
No more. We cannot argue about universal rights and expansion of programs when we can’t afford them. Its nuts. Yeah, I get you’re an Obama guy and I also get wanting your team to win (I coach football, remember?), but we’re pushing these programs when we have no real means to fund them and are getting way too close to the edge of the cliff for my liking, which was my point about many of the Tea Partyers having a valid point.
We need to get back on track with education, and infrastructure and REAL renewable energy programs. We need to cut defense, entitlements and the bailouts.[/quote]
Or, of course, we could restore some of the massive tax cuts given to the top 2-5% over the past 30 years.
Part of the reason why we had the ability to fund those “Guns and Butter” programs and don’t any more (in fact, an enormous part of the reason) is the simple fact that over the past 30 years we’ve cut taxes on the middle class just a little bit, while cutting taxes on the incredibly wealthy by an enormous amount (in the 50’s, as an example, a corporate titan’s top income tax bracket would have been more than double his bracket today, and his capital gains would’ve been taxed much higher than todays rates as well).
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: The problem here is you want to eat your cake and have it, too. When JFK (and, later, LBJ) pushed for a wider social safety net, the world and the US were very different places. The period from 1945 (WWII’s end) to about 1972, was an American Golden Age. We won’t ever see its like again. We had emerged virtually unscathed from WWII (when compared to Europe, England and Japan) and were dominant militarily, economically and politically. We had the ability to fund “guns and butter” programs (i.e. Vietnam AND the Great Society).
No more. We cannot argue about universal rights and expansion of programs when we can’t afford them. Its nuts. Yeah, I get you’re an Obama guy and I also get wanting your team to win (I coach football, remember?), but we’re pushing these programs when we have no real means to fund them and are getting way too close to the edge of the cliff for my liking, which was my point about many of the Tea Partyers having a valid point.
We need to get back on track with education, and infrastructure and REAL renewable energy programs. We need to cut defense, entitlements and the bailouts.[/quote]
Or, of course, we could restore some of the massive tax cuts given to the top 2-5% over the past 30 years.
Part of the reason why we had the ability to fund those “Guns and Butter” programs and don’t any more (in fact, an enormous part of the reason) is the simple fact that over the past 30 years we’ve cut taxes on the middle class just a little bit, while cutting taxes on the incredibly wealthy by an enormous amount (in the 50’s, as an example, a corporate titan’s top income tax bracket would have been more than double his bracket today, and his capital gains would’ve been taxed much higher than todays rates as well).
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: The problem here is you want to eat your cake and have it, too. When JFK (and, later, LBJ) pushed for a wider social safety net, the world and the US were very different places. The period from 1945 (WWII’s end) to about 1972, was an American Golden Age. We won’t ever see its like again. We had emerged virtually unscathed from WWII (when compared to Europe, England and Japan) and were dominant militarily, economically and politically. We had the ability to fund “guns and butter” programs (i.e. Vietnam AND the Great Society).
No more. We cannot argue about universal rights and expansion of programs when we can’t afford them. Its nuts. Yeah, I get you’re an Obama guy and I also get wanting your team to win (I coach football, remember?), but we’re pushing these programs when we have no real means to fund them and are getting way too close to the edge of the cliff for my liking, which was my point about many of the Tea Partyers having a valid point.
We need to get back on track with education, and infrastructure and REAL renewable energy programs. We need to cut defense, entitlements and the bailouts.[/quote]
Or, of course, we could restore some of the massive tax cuts given to the top 2-5% over the past 30 years.
Part of the reason why we had the ability to fund those “Guns and Butter” programs and don’t any more (in fact, an enormous part of the reason) is the simple fact that over the past 30 years we’ve cut taxes on the middle class just a little bit, while cutting taxes on the incredibly wealthy by an enormous amount (in the 50’s, as an example, a corporate titan’s top income tax bracket would have been more than double his bracket today, and his capital gains would’ve been taxed much higher than todays rates as well).
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=SD Realtor]I would say anybody that has to spend 6 hours a day with alot of children is earning money. To me being a teacher working those hours 9 months a year is A HELL of alot harder then being an engineer and writing code all day.[/quote]
I disagree. The amount of knowledge, creative thinking and deadline pressures you have to deal with on some of these Engineering projects is far greater than any high school teacher will experience I can tell you that.
How much knowledge do you need to put kids in line? How much knowledge and experience do you think one needs to fix a mission critical multi million dollar system that breaks down in the middle of the night and needs to be resolved before the start of business next morning?
Comparing the two is just ridiculous![/quote]
IIRC, SD Realtor IS in fact an engineer (as are many on this board). I think he does realize. I think you don’t realize how difficult dealing with 150+ teenagers (assuming 5 classes of 30 teens each) can be on a daily basis. I may retire into teaching some day, but it will be because I enjoy imparting knowledge and think I can make a difference – it won’t be because I think the job is “easy” – because it isn’t.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=SD Realtor]I would say anybody that has to spend 6 hours a day with alot of children is earning money. To me being a teacher working those hours 9 months a year is A HELL of alot harder then being an engineer and writing code all day.[/quote]
I disagree. The amount of knowledge, creative thinking and deadline pressures you have to deal with on some of these Engineering projects is far greater than any high school teacher will experience I can tell you that.
How much knowledge do you need to put kids in line? How much knowledge and experience do you think one needs to fix a mission critical multi million dollar system that breaks down in the middle of the night and needs to be resolved before the start of business next morning?
Comparing the two is just ridiculous![/quote]
IIRC, SD Realtor IS in fact an engineer (as are many on this board). I think he does realize. I think you don’t realize how difficult dealing with 150+ teenagers (assuming 5 classes of 30 teens each) can be on a daily basis. I may retire into teaching some day, but it will be because I enjoy imparting knowledge and think I can make a difference – it won’t be because I think the job is “easy” – because it isn’t.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=SD Realtor]I would say anybody that has to spend 6 hours a day with alot of children is earning money. To me being a teacher working those hours 9 months a year is A HELL of alot harder then being an engineer and writing code all day.[/quote]
I disagree. The amount of knowledge, creative thinking and deadline pressures you have to deal with on some of these Engineering projects is far greater than any high school teacher will experience I can tell you that.
How much knowledge do you need to put kids in line? How much knowledge and experience do you think one needs to fix a mission critical multi million dollar system that breaks down in the middle of the night and needs to be resolved before the start of business next morning?
Comparing the two is just ridiculous![/quote]
IIRC, SD Realtor IS in fact an engineer (as are many on this board). I think he does realize. I think you don’t realize how difficult dealing with 150+ teenagers (assuming 5 classes of 30 teens each) can be on a daily basis. I may retire into teaching some day, but it will be because I enjoy imparting knowledge and think I can make a difference – it won’t be because I think the job is “easy” – because it isn’t.
Participant[quote=kev374][quote=SD Realtor]I would say anybody that has to spend 6 hours a day with alot of children is earning money. To me being a teacher working those hours 9 months a year is A HELL of alot harder then being an engineer and writing code all day.[/quote]
I disagree. The amount of knowledge, creative thinking and deadline pressures you have to deal with on some of these Engineering projects is far greater than any high school teacher will experience I can tell you that.
How much knowledge do you need to put kids in line? How much knowledge and experience do you think one needs to fix a mission critical multi million dollar system that breaks down in the middle of the night and needs to be resolved before the start of business next morning?
Comparing the two is just ridiculous![/quote]
IIRC, SD Realtor IS in fact an engineer (as are many on this board). I think he does realize. I think you don’t realize how difficult dealing with 150+ teenagers (assuming 5 classes of 30 teens each) can be on a daily basis. I may retire into teaching some day, but it will be because I enjoy imparting knowledge and think I can make a difference – it won’t be because I think the job is “easy” – because it isn’t.
-
AuthorPosts