Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems YOU don't quite get it. It's not as drastic, but you still have to MAKE more (IIRC the number is around a buck seventy to hold a dollar in your hot little hand.
Really? How about you explain what you're saying. If I increase my income by $500/month or reduce spending to "save" $500/month, how is the savings achieve by increase by income magically different than the $500/month I achieve by cutting spending?
Admittedly, there are tax implications, namely that the additional $500/month in income may be taxed at a higher rate than the $500 that is "saved" via spending cuts. But this would depend on the details and there are ways you can mitigate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname
Your really clueless arn't you? Just conisder, if SO MANY people are saying something different, not saying their are right, but it MIGHT be worth considering...
Clueless about what? Semi-conductor engineering? Yeah, I'm clueless about that. But, perhaps, you should again explain matters?
In terms of "so many people", when "so many people" keep saving something, its my inclination to believe that its wrong. Of course, I'm always happy to listen to people articulate their views, but that really hasn't occurred yet.
In terms of spending a little time to "save money", I don't think anybody is suggesting that one shouldn't be sensible with their purchases. I do all sorts of things that save money over time, but none of them really cost much in terms of time. If I'm going to spend time, I may as well spend it on revenue generation.
You'll get up tomorrow morning and drive to work, and waste a beautiful spring day at the office. I won't. Because I don't need your paycheck---I've learned to live without it, and I still get my beautiful spring days, and I can happily walk in them barefoot. And many of you, deep down inside, are as green as the new grass with envy.
I will get up tomorrow morning (as I did yesterday too, had something I wanted get done) and drive 10 minutes to my office because I enjoy it, if someone dropped $100 million in my bank tonight I'd still get up tomorrow morning and go to my office. If I wanted to take the day off and enjoy the beautiful day, I could. Of course, I really don't have to worry about missing a beautiful spring day because there will be another one tomorrow, the next day, etc.
I'm not in any sense jealous of your lifestyle, not to mention that I could "retire" today with a higher standard of living than you despite being much younger.
Yes they do, they usually just don't realize it or refuse to take appropriate action. In terms of time, people here seem willing to spend time in order to save money, why would spending extra time making more money be any different? But spending more time working is not the only way to increase your income....
Your quote should be a thread itself posed to the frugal savers here.
People spend extra time to bag their own lunch, mow the lawn etc... But they are against working more and spending time to make more.
It comes down to economics, a lot of the frugal people try to justify their life choices as making sense in the long run but it depends on your ability to earn money and the time spent "saving money". Being frugal isn't always cost effective or the smart thing to do it depends.
Your quote should be a thread itself posed to the frugal savers here.
People spend extra time to bag their own lunch, mow the lawn etc... But they are against working more and spending time to make more.
It comes down to economics, a lot of the frugal people try to justify their life choices as making sense in the long run but it depends on your ability to earn money and the time spent "saving money". Being frugal isn't always cost effective or the smart thing to do it depends.
The issue is very subjective depending on one's values and circumstances. I, personally, have always preferred to work and let the non-income producing tasks slide. I also prefer to hire people to do what I hate or can't do for myself. Thus, I need income to afford that. I pretty much look at everything I do in terms of time/value of money, i.e., a cost/benefit analysis if you will. If clipping coupons saves me $10, whereas spending the same amount of time doing research in order to make the right investment in my IRA earns me thousands, I'll always prioritize in favor of the IRA.
Even though I'm not working now and am doing a lot of cost cutting which has reduced my expenses by thousands annually, I am also focused on maximizing investments for the future. Menial work around the house or saving $10 at the grocery store is not a top priority. That I'll do later, or I won't have a house or retirement to worry about.
Years ago, I did take a reduced income in favor of quality of life. It was the correct choice at the time. I do think men have far more latitude in this area. Single women with children are more limited.
Definitely not a one-size fits all, given the variety of personalities and perceptions and life circumstances.
You are incorrect. This thing has hit across all strata. That chart you showed me looks like it came from a college promoting the value of higher education.
FWIW, I have an MBA. I also am over 50. I spend plenty of time on forums with those who are unemployed and, trust me, these people are not lower skilled. Many are having to dumb down their resumes to look lower skilled though.
Check this out... from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is definitely not a college promoting the value of higher education.
Notice that that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for people with less than a high school diploma was around the 15% range in 2010.
For people with just high school diplomas, it was around 10%.
For people with some college or associates degrees, it was around 8%.
For people with a Bachelor's degree or higher, it was around 5%.
Obviously, these are statistics based on large sample pools, and there is a distribution of individual outcomes within each of those educational levels. But this tells you something about the disproportionate impact of this recession on lesser educated people.
Your logic of increased population leading to decreased employment opportunities defies the fundamental laws of economics. As population increases, so will the demand.
This article is very realistic and can be applied to many (but not all) people.
You mis-read what I said. As population increases SUPPLY will decrease due to over consumption of resources.
The only people I know that can something out of nothing are politicians and fools.
Really? How about you explain what you're saying. If I increase my income by $500/month or reduce spending to "save" $500/month, how is the savings achieve by increase by income magically different than the $500/month I achieve by cutting spending?
I already did. I will do so again:
In order to MAKE the equivalent of SAVING $1, you must EARN a larger amount, because Social insecurity, income tax, and other taxes are taken out of your earnings.
The SAME THING as a businesses overhead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Admittedly, there are tax implications, namely that the additional $500/month in income may be taxed at a higher rate than the $500 that is "saved" via spending cuts. But this would depend on the details and there are ways you can mitigate it.
No, you miss the mark again. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Clueless about what? Semi-conductor engineering? Yeah, I'm clueless about that. But, perhaps, you should again explain matters?
Look back, and you'll see I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
In terms of "so many people", when "so many people" keep saving something, its my inclination to believe that its wrong. Of course, I'm always happy to listen to people articulate their views, but that really hasn't occurred yet.
Sometimes the majority of people are wrong, but what I said was that the sheer numbers of people make it worth CONSIDERING...
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
In terms of spending a little time to "save money", I don't think anybody is suggesting that one shouldn't be sensible with their purchases. I do all sorts of things that save money over time, but none of them really cost much in terms of time. If I'm going to spend time, I may as well spend it on revenue generation.
Agreed, in large part. So why do you otherwise disagree when we make this same point?
In order to MAKE the equivalent of SAVING $1, you must EARN a larger amount, because Social insecurity, income tax, and other taxes are taken out of your earnings.
You said nothing about taxes before, though I did address this issue in my last post. Firstly, the $500 you are savings via spending cuts gets taxed as well. That is, though you may be saving $500, it took you more than $500 to get the $500 in the first place. Hence, as I discussed earlier, the real issue is whether the additional $500 will be taxed at a higher tax rate than the $500 that is saved via spending cuts. Whether this is the case depends on the individuals tax situation, not to mention whether they make any steps to mitigate taxes on the additional $500.
The situation here is not analogous at all to a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname
Sometimes the majority of people are wrong, but what I said was that the sheer numbers of people make it worth CONSIDERING...
And as I stated previously, I think the sheer numbers indicate that it is not worth considering.
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname Seems YOU don't quite get it. It's not as drastic, but you still have to MAKE more (IIRC the number is around a buck seventy to hold a dollar in your hot little hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
though I did address this issue in my last post. Firstly, the $500 you are savings via spending cuts gets taxed as well. That is, though you may be saving $500, it took you more than $500 to get the $500 in the first place.
Incorrect. Remember the anecdotal: "The fastest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket." ?
It's not all anecdot. You have ALREADY PAID the taxes on it, so if you DO NOT spend $5 on an overpriced cup of coffee, you HAVE a whole $5 to spend on something else.
Whereas if you SPENT $5 (That you had) on Starbucks, you would have to go and make MORE than $5 to spend on the Mortgage you otherwise could put that money towards.
Don't know how to explain it any simpler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Hence, as I discussed earlier, the real issue is whether the additional $500 will be taxed at a higher tax rate than the $500 that is saved via spending cuts. Whether this is the case depends on the individuals tax situation, not to mention whether they make any steps to mitigate taxes on the additional $500.
Incorrect, see above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The situation here is not analogous at all to a business.
Incorrect. BOTH (Businesses and people) have gross and net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
And as I stated previously, I think the sheer numbers indicate that it is not worth considering.
You are welcome to your opinion, but it seems based on nothing but your opinion.
It's not all anecdot. You have ALREADY PAID the taxes on it, so if you DO NOT spend $5 on an overpriced cup of coffee, you HAVE a whole $5 to spend on something else.
The fact that you have already paid the taxes doesn't change the fact that you did indeed pay them. Furthermore, to say it again, there are ways to mitigate the taxes on the additional $500.
Pre-tax the situations are the same, after-tax there may be some differences but that depends on the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname
Incorrect. BOTH (Businesses and people) have gross and net.
The previous analogy was in terms of gross revenue and net profit, that distinction doesn't apply to individuals. Tax issues are similar for businesses and individuals, but there are some major differences as well.
I never denied that there are some tax implications, in fact I mentioned them before you did. But the tax issues are very nuanced... I have no idea where you got the idea that you'd have to earn $1.70 to receive an additional $1 after-taxes... That isn't even true if you're rich and stupid with your taxes....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
