Posted on 02/27/2005 4:31:19 AM PST by MississippiMasterpiece
If it were not for EBAY, and selling my old garbage, I would have no spending money.
I don't know if you are there yet but I recently became 59 and a half years old and eligible to take money from my 401k.
I've been retired for 5 years and am doing just fine without it but figured out what it would do to me tax wise to spend some of it and decided to leave it right where it is for a while.
The theory behind tax deferred savings plans is that when you are retired you will be in a lower bracket and therefore will pay less taxes when you withdraw it.
I'm here to testify that it doesn't always work that way. There's always a day of reckoning.
Having said all of that, I still reccommend it.
Among Kerry's many flaws was his soak the "rich" plan.
No matter what the question, raising taxes is not the answer.
Excellent point. I raised that issue to a friend of mine when we were in our 20s (ten years ago). Ironically, we strive to be in the highest bracket. Maxing your 401k when your income has you in the 15% bracket is not necessarily the best way to go, provided you are prudent with your money. I think young people with lower incomes are better served by Roth IRAs first, then contributing to the tax-deferred plans.
Then again, I did not follow my own counsel; it's difficult to convince a 20-something with limited income to save at all.
You're absolutely right. In fact, the world "affluent" comes from the root phrase "to flow." Lots of money going in; lots of money going right out again. I live in Omaha, and it's not uncommon to see very nice homes in the "affluent" side of town with little or no furniture in the most of the rooms. Pretty insane.
A bit of the topic, but I find the phrase "Not for nothing" among the most annoying since "Yeah, right?" came along back in the 80's.
I live in NJ (yes, it's hell), and hear people (primarily from NYC) say this all the time, starting sentences with "Not for nothing, but..."
It's just so idiotic. Can I not safely assume that if you're bothering to open your mouth, then whatever you are saying is "not for nothing"?
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic rant, but to see the phrase appear (twice, no less!) in a newspaper article is almost too much.
In Toronto you will pay $200,000 for a "bachelor" that measures 286 square feet. Yes, about the size of a two-car garage, and half the size of my $951 per month apartment with no amenities at all including a yard.
It's a combination of location and taxes.
However, when I graduated from university in 1970, $10,000 per year was the break point into the middle class; my parents never earned more than that combining their incomes. And in that year a star hockey player made $30,000 a year. Now he makes that much every week. And is still whining that he can't live on it, by the way.
Then the outrageously expensive housing results in high real estate taxes. If you rent a 4k/month apartment, you are paying the landlord and the landlord then pays the real estate taxes. Anyone who thinks that a NY landlord simply eats the real estate taxes without passing them on is living in a dream world.
We are not spoiled. Most people in America are lower class. Most live paycheck to paycheck. Most can't seem to ever get ahead. I live within my means and have to bail out with my taxes everyone else who will not. IE "Who's the 'we' sucka!"
The "we" don't save enough argument really means that the public isn't turning over their income for the rich to use in becoming richer while paying their employees less and less - thus the attempt to force it through the Social Security changes.. If those poor people with nothing can't save anything, we'll tax it out of them and hand it to the stock market anyway.. Right. And we'll continue to pay them less so that in another 20 years it will take three incomes to afford what One income would in the 50s and the Rich using everyone elses money to get even more rich will further expand the difference between what they earn and what they pay. Equity, it would seem, is only Equity as defined by those at the top. Saving money is only saving money if it is going to be there. If someone is gambling with it - there's no garauntee it will be there. I seem to remember something about a "Savings and Loan" bailout wherein people looted the savings and the American people stolen from were paid back by robbing ALL the American people and then returning it to those stolen from.. So everyone got stolen from by the government in order to make up for the fraud of the businessmen.
Seems to me, this country does just fine if you get the Greedy people out of government. But that would include our own people - can't do that... (/sarcasm)
Yes. Start at $100k. Put 15% in a 401k and that leaves $85k. After Fed/State/Local taxes that looks like $50k, roughly $4,200/month disposable. In Manhattan a decent (not great, decent) one bedroom apartment will take at least half of that, leaving just over $2,000/month for food, transportation, utilities (cable/phone/internet) insurance, travel/entertainment, healthcare, clothing, dry cleaning....Add (or subtract) 8.75 sales tax on everything and, in NYC, $100k is not much. If you have a family it is not enough.
The millionaire next door
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671015206/102-2037912-9763335
Spillane sounds like she desperately needs to get laid off and experience a year or two of reality.
Or, preferably, just get hit by a bus.
I lived just fine in Manhattan when I was making only $30K/yr. Every person in this article is "suffering" for one reason: They're spending lots of money on frills and fun. Even in Manhattan, I'd be living pretty high on the hog for $100K/yr. Perhaps if I was also supporting a wife (who didn't work) and a couple of kids (who would have to go to private school; the NYC public schools are hellish), then $100K/yr would indeed make for a very frugal lifestyle. But living alone? It's far more than plenty.
Forget big cities. 100K won't qualify you for the median price home in the ENTIRE state of California. The median price is 473K.
$170 Diesel jeans
Why? For two-three pairs of those jeans, I can get a top level suit.
$4,650 monthly rent
That's 8 months rent here.
So, it appears that the world is against you. I wish that whatever happened to you that snuffed your flame did not happen.
If you are single and making $100K in NYC, then you are by all means doing pretty well. If you insist on living in the City, and not Brooklyn, Queens or Hoboken, you are going to pay a pretty steep premium for housing. Any $2000/month apartment in Hoboken is easily $3000 or more in Manhattan.
Having said that for singles, it is probably very difficult to raise a familiy on $100k a year in Manhattan. Unless you want to send your children to one of the crappiest public school systems on the planet, you would probably have to shell out $10K to $25k per year per child to send them to a parochial or private school. Thanks to the Democrats, their is no tax deduction for paying for your own kids schooling.
Another thing that makes it difficult to live, with a family, on $100k in Manhattan is a lack of supermarkets and Walmarts and Targets. This makes everyday items very expensive compared to the burbs. The lack of supermarkets and high-volume, low-priced retail businesses is due more to political stupidity than to anything else. Any number of the established mega-retailers have tried to set up shop in the city and have been rebuffed by the liberal purists desire to "stand up to corporate America." Typically, the liberal purists have enough money not to care about the price of groceries and in the process hurt the people that could use a Wal-Mart the most.
The world is against me? heh. I think my point was that the politicians are largely screwing all of us for themselves and rich pals. Thus the approach on immigration. They can't bring themselves to uphold the law because they're making too much money off illegal activity. How much more blatent does it have to be. It bleeds over. They've all tipped their hands and confirmed what most of us believed. Since when is a group of a few thousand politicians 'the world' save in their own minds.
My wife and I are in our mid-twenties. Except for our house, which we bought on a 15 year mortgage, we've not borrowed a dime for anything in almost three years.
It's amazing the opportunities that seem to open up for you when you aren't going into debt and actually have some money in savings.
I began a job this summer making $10,000 a month. My wife stays home with our two children. Saving money has suddenly become a very big issue for us.
As far as the 401k issue, I'd take it over a Roth only if your company matches because you're guaranteed to double your earnings. Otherwise, I'd be starting with the Roth and using the 401k after the Roth is maxed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.