Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Squeaking by on $300,000; How do the upper classes manage in these tough times?
popinjay
Member Posts: 6,539
I'm sure after reading this, everyone will have a better appreciation of just how hard it is to live on $300k a year in America.
This woman and her family seem to be at their wit's end trying to make ends meet with all their daily household bills just surviving.
I'm sure some of you that make less than $100k a year should realize that not only you are hurting, and that people like this exist and they barely have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
Comments
Yes, they are irresponsible with their money. They simply spend to spend, but it seems you are demonizing them simply because they make $300K/year.
Now, I will prove a simple point:
Those high wage earners, those that earn the $250K/year, they are the job creators. Your article shows simple proof. They created a nanny job and pay her $40K/year. If they are gouged with taxes, guess what expense they will cut first. Their nanny will be fired and another job loss will be notched in the unemployment belt.
Fire the nanny, gardener, pool cleaner, snow plower, plumber and the private school and hire me to do all for 1/2 the price.
I could be a Marry Poppins fix it all for that kinda money.
Hell, i might even sing disney hits.
And i wouldnt let them little bastards "off" for the summer vaction. Hell no, education with me would be year round. Do you want to be successful and own your own servants one day kid? Then do your algebra dammit.
de·mon·ize (-?z?)
transitive verb demonized -·ized?, demonizing -·iz?·ing
to make into a demon
to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc. to demonize a political opponent
to bring under the influence of demons
I'm sorry... Where'd it seem that way?
EDIT: Also, the woman has no benefits of any kind. 40k a year in New York is nothing when you figure in healthcare and other daily living expenses. That's New York, not Texas.
"TO MICHAEL!"
de·mon·ize (-?z?)
transitive verb demonized -·ized?, demonizing -·iz?·ing
to make into a demon
to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc. to demonize a political opponent
to bring under the influence of demons
I'm sorry... Where'd it seem that way?
EDIT: Also, the woman has no benefits of any kind. 40k a year in New York is nothing when you figure in healthcare and other daily living expenses. That's New York, not Texas.
Now you're simply arguing semantics of a definition. You know quite well what I, and what you meant.
And, so what? No benefits. Big deal. She has a job. She could easily afford medical benefits on that salary when she is a live in nanny.
She is live in, thats a pretty nice benefit in itself. And how do you know she has no coverage, cant really read it because the post wants me to log into my acoount.....
Is she a private solo act or a member of a Nanny service?
Probably not. at 300k, any tax hikes, chiefly Bush's tax cuts expiring will maybe cut into one disneyland trip for someone earning 300k. 300k is too close to the margin to say any additional income taxes would equate to a nanny job. It'd take earning over a million to even reach five digits in new income tax.
She is live in, thats a pretty nice benefit in itself. And how do you know she has no coverage, cant really read it because the post wants me to log into my acoount.....
Is she a private solo act or a member of a Nanny service?
From one of the pics captions that goes with the article.
"Steins and the children's nanny, Kathy Shellogg, 55, wait in the orthodontist office for Harrison, who is getting his braces removed. Often, Shellogg takes the children to their appointments and meets Steins there. Shellogg has no health or dental insurance of her own."
And yeah, I guess if you were homeless, living in someone else's house might be a pretty nice benefit.
I'd prefer personally to live in my own house with my family though.
"TO MICHAEL!"
okay seriously..WTF!?!?!
If you make 300k a year, and your short on money and/or complain your short on money, then that said person is a moron.
My family makes roughly 50k a year, and we are living absolutely fine, shit if we were making 300k i'd be the happiest mother fucker in the country.
seriously holy crap how the hell do you screw up financialy when your making that kind of money!? =/
de·mon·ize (-?z?)
transitive verb demonized -·ized?, demonizing -·iz?·ing
to make into a demon
to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc. to demonize a political opponent
to bring under the influence of demons
I'm sorry... Where'd it seem that way?
EDIT: Also, the woman has no benefits of any kind. 40k a year in New York is nothing when you figure in healthcare and other daily living expenses. That's New York, not Texas.
Now you're simply arguing semantics of a definition. You know quite well what I, and what you meant.
And, so what? No benefits. Big deal. She has a job. She could easily afford medical benefits on that salary when she is a live in nanny.
Not semantics if you accuse someone of something they didn't do. The article was posted with minimal comment and I certainly wasn't portraying someone who makes 300k a year "evil".
How am I to know what you say when you use a specific word such as "demonizing"? Contrary to opinion, I don't read minds, lol.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Are you hung well enough to be a pool cleaner?
The Great Recession has impacted the middle-class to upper middle-class in the United States. I have attended business meetings with I knew people whose companies were constructing mult-million dollar homes, and now they work for my brother's company as "managers." These same people try to persuade my brother to give them money (bonuses) to get their seized boats in the dock.
One thing I have learned is this:
Most people, in the working-class (blue or white collar), believe the middle-class is upper middle-class or even rich.
The middle-class is NOT the majority; YOUR leaders use "middle-class" because you mistakenly believe that YOU (most of you at least) are middle-class.
Most people are between working-class to lower middle-class, regardless of job title.
Class is income. Wealth is assets.
This is not about wealth.
Plainly, I do not know how so many of you "make it." I seriously do not. I have some background in finance, taught economics, worked in business, and so on and so forth. How do you make it with all the taxes, fees, regulations, parking tickets, grocery bills, tuition costs, health care needs, mortgage payments, insurance, pets, etc.? I do not get it. It is a mystery to ME.*
*The ability to "make it," even in the eyes of the majority of Americans, I think will become increasingly more difficult.
EDIT
One thing I have learned, however, is that many households are two-income today. It is more due to economic necessity really than by choice. It is good for the state as well since the state relies on INCOME TAXES (that is YOU) to finance government.
The societal consequences of a two-parent household without a nanny have not been explored I do not think.
It would be interesting to see what the consequences of all these single-family households and two-income households.
EDIT 2
"We all might live in nice houses and drive nice cars, but we're just holding on," Steins says.
So true. As someone who worked in real estate, and still do to a certain limited extent, this is so true.
Most of you cannot afford the homes you live. I know this because I know that the majority of households also have more in debt than in the value of the home.
The same is true for the so-called "rich" (middle-class and upper middle-class homes). The real rich are not that many, which is SHOCKING again to many Americans.
Possibly the most financially and wealth illiterate developed people. No other country in MY view would tolerate such extraordinary income inequality, which is fascinating to see only grow and expand . . .
"DEATH TAX!"
What was your purpose of posting this OP?
And then others who read it as well would read the comments and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
Did you read it?
If not, don't comment.
"TO MICHAEL!"
^^^
I lol'ed
And then others who read it as well would read the comments and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
And then others who read it as well would read it and comment.
Did you read it?
If not, don't comment.
Hmmmmm, so you're the one that is doing the baiting and then reporting?
Could it be true???
She is live in, thats a pretty nice benefit in itself. And how do you know she has no coverage, cant really read it because the post wants me to log into my acoount.....
Is she a private solo act or a member of a Nanny service?
$40k and no rent or house payment/tax in New York, that is indeed a nice benefit. The $40k would pretty much be considered equaled to $80k with rent.
No commuting expenses, since living at the work site, more savings there. Likely not of owning a car either, so more savings.
So if taxes were at 40% (just for the sake to reduce the net pay), take home pay would be $2,000/mo with no home or car payments or related issues... I think health and dental insurance would be possible to cover. I wouldn't be surprized if she didn't have to pay for food, such as having lunches with the kids (unless going out to places on her own time).
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
The total cost of insurance for most individuals by themselves instead of through their employer is typically cheaper then how much you and your employer pay for an employer offered insurance plan. Alot of small businesses who work in the blue-collared field will pay their employee alot less as a result of offering an employer based insurance. I had that experience when I was fliping through merged companies some offering some not. The ones that were I made about 20% less with.
Speaking purely of this family, I think it speaks of the major success in the US free market system. The woman in the article is a woman born into affluence and continues to live beyond her means. Its what happens in America, and is the reason most of the rich are 1st generation. Their offspring don't know how to manage money so they get driven into poverty. To give you an idea of the difference between the Bush and the Clinton tax plans. I actually agree with the Clinton tax policy. She would be paying about $15k more in taxes under Clinton in the tune of $120k. This includes an increase of 5% in income taxes and 15% increase in capital gains. Remember she is a single parent so she doesn't recieve the couples rate on income taxes. Kids don't count for a $50k tax credit just because you are rich.
Employers can offer the plans to their employees at a discount. I know for state plans which are generally good because of the amount of state employees involved, an individual can get the same insurance their employer gives them for around $1000-1400 a month for family plan. But even though they pay that, the employer doesn't; they get a discount so it's not fair to say they get it cheaper than their employer pays when figuring in those discounts.
The individual would have to pay more solo. If they want to pay the same they are going to see huge reductions in quality.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Now that I think about it, it probably had more to do with the demographic of my co-workers. Retired old men. I'm considered a healthy 25 year old so my insurance premiums are probably going to be way cheaper then my 68 year old coworkers.
If that is affluence, then we are all in trouble. She is a middle-class woman struggling to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle (nanny, more than enough home, small luxuries, etc.).
Trust me, she is not rich.
The everyday mainstream use of demonizing within the political arena does not necessarily mean "evil".
Individual insurance is the same quality, but slight differences. Currently, if I were to add my wife on my employer insurance, it would be ~$600/month. However, I got a quote from the same insurance company (Aetna) for my wife with the same exact coverage (with two small differences) and her quoted rate was $165/month.
The two small differences were that she had a $1000 annual deductible and a $5,000,000 lifetime benefit. I have no deductible and no limetime maximum. Hitting that maximum is difficult, unless one has cancer.
If that is affluence, then we are all in trouble. She is a middle-class woman struggling to maintain an upper middle-class lifestyle (nanny, more than enough home, small luxuries, etc.).
Trust me, she is not rich.
You have a very skewed definition of middle-class. Middle class earners range greater than 150% of the poverty level to about 50K per year.
She is by far from rich, but she is not middle class (we are speaking of salary, nothing more).
300k+ per year is what? The top 4% of household income earners in the US? I'd guess that most people in the US would classify anyone making more than 96% of the population as "rich". To put it again in perspective, that probably puts her in the neighborhood of the top 5-6% in the world, which again I would guess 95% of the world's population would consider "rich." That means that she is "richer" than somewhere around 6.4 billion people. If you want to call her "not rich," go ahead, but honestly, perception would prove otherwise. Sure, someone in Mexico, who has no job but no debt and has a house, a garden, and a source of water on their property would "own more," they'd probably think she was still rich.
She could sell that muli-million dollar home for starters. She is probably paying monthly around $21,000 in principal + interest, taxes, and insurance. She is only making $25k per month. Of course, the reason she can even continue to afford the nanny, gardener, private school, etc is because of the alimony she failed to mention in the interview. Her actual income needs to be closer to 380k just to pay the monthly bills mentioned in the article.
I see this as a testamnet to the fact that money does not buy intelligence in finances more than how much her income is.
I know people that make more than she does, but whose finances are a total mess. I also know people that make less than $30K who are better off than she is.