The Rev-rhund Sharpton says that you must increase your taxes paid next year, then! Pay up!
Posted on 11/06/2007 5:49:23 AM PST by shrinkermd
This article is a compilation of income and wealth statistics by percentile. It is fairly comprehensive.
Among the quotes are:
Or, as a Washington think tank recently pointed out: If you're a teacher married to a policeman, your combined household income puts you in the top 25 percent of all households in the nation.
"...Whenever I slip these tidbits into cocktail party chatter, people are surprised to realize how little money it takes to win a gold star from the Fed. If you and yours are bringing in $40,000 a year, you're doing better than half the households in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
fro is for from. Careless typing. But I am rich so you cannot criticize me {ahahhahahaha}
The Rev-rhund Sharpton says that you must increase your taxes paid next year, then! Pay up!
I feel better already.
That is mean!!
Begone poor man, I shall consult my many tax advisors and find some loopholes to protect my wealth.
“If you’re a teacher married to a policeman, your combined household income puts you in the top 25 percent of all households in the nation.”
On Long Island the yearly salary for this couple would exceed $200,000 with tremendous benefits (almost nothing out of pocket). If the Police Officer hubby works a little overtime they can get the annual payola over $250K.As well, when they both retire their yearly incomes can approach their working incomes (perhaps exceed)depending on how many vacation, sick days they cash in and how much OT they work their last three years, all going towards their gross income. God Bless our politicians in the State of New York and the Long Island Counties for making our teachers and cops very wealthy (sarcasm). I feel sick....
The article is trying desperately to pretend it is some stacked deck game, when anyone with anything to invest can assure himself better than average returns by using low fee indexes. Actively managed instead can only make more somewhere if another actively managed makes less. In the aggregate, they too have to get the average return - minus the vastly higher fees involved.
The other things missing in the whole article are age and household size breakdowns. Two married workers in mid to late career are going to count as "rich" unless they have been financially irresponsible their entire lives. A single person just out of college isn't going to have any assets, outside a tiny second generation trust fund set.
LOL! Poor man - that’s me!
Of course it is all relative. I made more than $170K per year for several years but I don’t feel rich. I save as much as possible. I drive old cars ( all my cars have over 125K miles. I live a very conservative life style. I don’t have a lot of toys (ATV, boats). I tithe to my church, make house payments in Southern Cal, and after taxes I don’t save over 15% of my salary. It would be hard to survive in SoCal making $80K and 2 kids in college. The stats I find appalling is the net worth. 50% of the people have less than $60K. You can’t retire with just SS, our children are going to have a huge problem when SS goes up in smoke.
Get to the top by spending like you’re at the bottom.
Median world income is about $2 per person per day.
If you’re making more than half the world’s population, you’re not poor.
Very nicely stated.
It's all about the peer pressure: as long as the values of the peer group demand socialism and anti-Americanism as a sign of being a member of the 'enlightened', then that's what we will get.
It may have been a fatal mistake to cede control of the universities and the schools to the left, because that is where this peer pressure originates and is perpetuated.
Our children may not have as hard a time as you envision providing we all die and they rollover our IRAs and Keoughs and let them continue to earn tax free.
Plus they inherit the house at the stepped up value.
They, many of them, are gonna get windfalls.
The article makes the following statement:
Net worth, as every financially precocious schoolchild knows, is the sum of one's assets -- home equity, investments, savings accounts, retirement funds, cars, furnishings and such things as jewelry, furs, wine collection, old baseball cards -- minus all outstanding liabilities such as mortgage balance, revolving and credit card debt, college loans and so on
Is this correct (see the bold): net worth includes "home equity"... minus "mortgage balance"? Shouldn't this be "home value" minus "mortgage balance"?
yep.
We left $110k to move our kids to a better environment. After we moved, it took 7 years to get us to half of that.
This had 20% groups except for the top two were 10%, and it had figures for the median of each group. I guess that means the actual figures then were for the 10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, 85th and 95th percentiles. I would like to see the break points for income and wealth in 5% or even 1% increments.
Exactly. A family with a lifelong accumulated wealth of $860k will typically have a modest 3 bedroom home on a half acre plot in a suburb, with two moderate cars and without any "extras" such as a boat, vacation home, timeshare, etc
This is a point I continually try to drive home to my children. They have no idea what "poor" really is. My wife, who goes on mission trips to Peru, has seen it, as have I (spending 3 years in a third-world country during jr. high will open your eyes). I hope and pray that my children understand how blessed they are.
I meant no disrespect to you, and I agree that it does make a difference on your locality. The trade-off is a more wholesome lifestyle and less stress.
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.