L

lp85253

Audioholic Chief
It's expensive being poor


I think a decent definition of rich is amassing enough wealth that work no longer becomes a necessity.
You may be on to something, i think you need to replace the word work with income...
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
It's not a scoff, I've witnessed many times over the abuse of the welfare system. Trouble is, there are many folks who are poor for all the sad reasons we can come up with and then there's those who are poor for all the wrong reasons. Difficult to see some times.

rants over, time to move on ..........
Guess it depends on how you define welfare...
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
By what age?? That could make all retired folks rich.

I am also curious what is poor? What is the income level?

Back to my statement above. I know people who make $100-120k as a household and cant buy a house because they can’t save enough money for a down payment. Or maybe I should clarify they don’t prioritize their spending to do so.

They also have no significant savings. This is not too uncommon from my perception. Many people continue to make poor decisions and put themselves in high risk financial positions. Or spend excessive money on items that have no long term value. Phones, expensive cars, big TVs etc...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
$100k/year isn't what it used to be.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
really? it isn't true?... the celeb grab bags given out at awards ceremonies to get fannies in seats (that are worth 10's of thousands) aren't real?.. comp rooms in big hotels aren't real...???i grew up getting freebies b/c i was a country club rat .. that didn't happen?
Those awards and shows are just excuses to have a circle jerk- it's not real life.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
No I don’t think I do. So you are saying that retires are all rich. Yet they all got bailout checks...
I assume you're referring to so-called stimulus payments, more properly referred to as Economic Impact Payments. EIPs are payable in full, at $600 per person and $600 per qualifying child, to anyone reporting income of up to $75,000 in 2019, or $150,000 if they were married filing jointly. Assets are not a factor, nor is wage income. So, if you're a retired married couple reporting an income of $150,000 or less you got a payment of $1200. I would guess that many tens of thousands of retirees with assets of over $1M got a payment. However, these payments are not bailouts by any common definition of the term, they were supposed to stimulate the economy. Don't like it? Bitching about it here is a waste of electrons. Write a letter to your congressperson or senator. They wrote and approved the legislation that defined the payment parameters.

As for all retirees being rich, let's examine that premise. Let's assume that the median retiree income, meaning those people between 65 and 75 years old, is about $55,000/year. I got the data here:


They got their data from the US Census.

Since all of this income is presumed to be from Social Security or other government programs, pensions, or income from investments, we can calculate the approximate value of the assets (or those behind the pension payments and SS) by making assumptions about the return on investment of the underlying assets. Note that if the retiree couple owned a home or other (non-rental) properties, they are not included in this calculation, because they don't create income. Assuming a very conservative 5% return on assets generating the $55,000 in retiree income, and assuming the underlying capital is not paid out at all, the value of the assets = 55,000/0.05 = $1,100,000. That looks high, but I've included Social Security income. Just for this discussion, let's assume the annual Social Security gross income (meaning I'm not subtracting the Medicare Part B premium of $148.50 per month) is $25,000. So that would mean that the private assets of the retiree couple with income of $55,000 per year is really only 55,000-25,000 = 30,000 / 5% = $600,000. That seems quite high to me, so either the $55,000/yr is too high, I've underestimated the returns on invested assets, or the Census numbers include income from retirees with part-time jobs who consider themselves retired anyway.

My conclusion is that most retirees are not rich. I think the majority of retirees are living on a relatively tight budget to preserve their wealth for what could be a 30 year retirement. I don't think all retirees aren't rich, some are, but I doubt it's more than 20% of the entire retiree population.
 
Last edited:
C

corneileous

Junior Audioholic
I think I read in Marketplace all but $9 billion of the $80 billion that went to General Motors and Chrysler was paid back.
Chrysler completely paid back the bailout that they got and the US treasury even got a $2 billion profit in interest alone just on Chrysler but GM for some reason, I don’t know why, but they paid everything back except for $10 million of what they borrowed but Ford on the other hand, even though so many people like to believe that Ford didn’t take a bailout out also, two years after GM and Chrysler was bailed out, they ended up taking a $5.9 billion loan from the government that they didn’t start paying back until another two years later and they’re not even projected to have that loan paid back until sometime next year.

It was an unfortunate time that caused the auto manufacturers to have to reach out to the government to keep from going under and being the cause of a loss of so many jobs even though supposedly the reason behind GM’s bailout was because of a piss poor corporate structure in the high office which to my knowledge, that was part of the deal for GM to get their bailout was they had get rid of almost everybody in their high office and they had to be replaced by government officials which is why at one point a lot of people referred to GM as government motors, and that’s why because for a while the US government was pretty much in charge of GM.

Chrysler on the other hand, in my opinion it’s no secret or nothing special why they needed help because after that fucked up so-called partnership with Mercedes running them into the ground and then selling them off to Cerebrus financial, Chrysler was in a very bad state which is why the terms of their bailout meant that they had to partner with somebody else which is where the so-called merger and partnership with Fiat came from.

But Ford on the other hand, they crack me up because they were the ones who said that they trimmed the fat in the right places and was able to manage themselves when they knew the market was about to take a dump and how they claimed that they didn’t need government assistance but yet they pulled a 180 on that and like I said above, two years later after GM and Chrysler was bailed out, they took a pretty large sum of money from the government and even though they claimed it was for the retooling of factories for electric and green technology, if they claimed they didn’t need money from the government then why did they turn around and take that much of a loan from the government when they said they didn’t have to two years before? It’s awful fishy to me and mot only that, how long it’s actually taking them to pay it off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
diskreet

diskreet

Audioholic
add to that another Socialist bail-out.............

It's funny how every time I see someone using 'socialism' as a scare tactic, they don't actually understand what the word means
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
It's funny how every time I see someone using 'socialism' as a scare tactic, they don't actually understand what the word means
:snicker:

Reminds me of a story a new class mate I got in high school in the 80'ies. He had been an exchange student to an US high school (forgotten where) where some of the students asked their fellow students if they would contribute to buy a new soda vending machine. That effort stopped when someone complained that this was "communist"!
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
It's funny how every time I see someone using 'socialism' as a scare tactic, they don't actually understand what the word means
no doubt but regardless the word has taken on multiple meanings as of late ...........


One popular view here is that socialism in America is a luxury paid for by the success of capitalism.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
no doubt but regardless the word has taken on multiple meanings as of late ...........


One popular view here is that socialism in America is a luxury paid for by the success of capitalism.
Do you read the drivel you post or you just trolling?
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
Do you read the drivel you post or you just trolling?
You're the Queen of drivel kid.....

so, back to the child support tax credit payments, you support paying 6 figure income families 'child support ' ?
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
Why don't you try explain what "Socialist bail-out" means in that you post of yours?
the fact that you didn't understand the implied meaning of the post probably means you wouldn't a further explanation ? Perhaps if I had left out the word 'socialist' ?
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top