Taxes

[wildcat09 29559]

Gee, I wonder what was happening in the world in April of 2020 that might've caused price decreases. It's just a total fuckin mystery.

[sheeeit 129]

15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Is this for real?

How about you point out what is incorrect?

 

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

sheeeeeit is cherrypicking and misrepresenting stats like a motherfucker (or at least mindlessly repeating whatever fox told him). Here's the actual raw data and not a trend tracker that obfuscated the data

Go figure! A lack of intellectual curiousity combined with repeating intellectually dishonest talking points.

Cloak Room in a nutshell.  I have tried to be civil but you are just too fucking stupid to even know what you are showing.  This is what I posted:

"We imposed 20% tariffs on Canadian lumber in April of 2017.  The spot price for lumber in April 2017 was 399.  In April of 2020 it was 282."

Your graph shows EXACTLY that.  3 years after we imposed tariffs on lumber the price of lumber was much lower.  Shocking that in a global pandemic where production was shut down that prices increased.  Are you suggesting that lumber tariffs imposed in 2017 are responsible for large price spikes as a result of a global pandemic?

[Blotto 23974]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

That data is cherry picked.  There was an initial spike in prices due to the tariffs but, as I keep saying, demand and production changed and by April of 2020 the prices were, in fact, lower than before the tariffs.

speaking of cherry picked data, your chart (with no citation) does not even show price, just rate of change of price. So if an item starts at $100, experiences a price change of 18% it is now $118. If the price then falls 5%, the price is now $112. When the spikes are larger on the increase side, prices go up. i shouldn't have to explain that, but I'm not sure you even understand what that graph illustrates.  God I hope you're not an econ grad with logic like that.

Meanwhile I provided  a much more detailed look at actual prices, with an explanation of the mechanics behind those price movements which you fail to address. If you're going to claim that prices went down, provide data which verifies that (your chart does not). 

Quote

The response following the 2018 tariffs was different—with important implications for how policymakers should weigh the costs and benefits of trade policy. 

Foreign manufacturers moved production again, this time opening plants in the United States. Still, washing machine prices spiked 12 percent. What’s more, dryers got more expensive as well, even though they weren’t subject to the tariffs. The median price of washing machines and clothes dryers increased by about $86 and $92 per unit, respectively. Taken together, an estimated 108 to 225 percent of the 2018 tariffs were passed through to consumers via higher prices. 

The reason for this comes down to pricing strategy, Flaaen said. Washing machines and dryers are complementary products that are typically bought together, and retailers price them about the same. 

Facing increased costs of selling washers in the US, companies made up for the lower margins by raising prices on dryers as well. 

“This particular pricing strategy of these firms led to this complementarity in the effects of the prices,” Flaaen said. “They wanted to keep those prices the same even after the tariffs... It’s spreading out the effect of the tariffs across the washing machines and dryers.”

So there was this unintended effect on dryer prices. What’s more, domestic companies like Whirlpool, Maytag, and GE also raised their prices even though their products weren’t affected by the new tariffs. 

The result is that more than 100 percent of the tariffs were passed through to consumers via higher prices. Overall, the authors estimate that consumer costs increased by just over $1.5 billion annually, dwarfing the estimated $82 million the US raised in tariff revenue. And while some jobs were created—mostly through foreign producers shifting work to the US—they were not nearly enough to offset the losses. The authors estimate that 1,800 additional jobs were created from the tariffs, with annual costs to consumers of around $815,000 per job created. 

 

[Hefeweizen 5416]

4 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Quick note that incredulity has received zero negs for his absolute shitposting and general stupidity throughout this thread(to be fair, it is a bad thread and OP is retarded so it didn't exactly start from a good place). It's almost as if he was trying to troll the thread to receive a bunch of negs so he could go crying about how horrible CR treated him.

I have him on ignore.  If you ignore him and don’t quote the stupid posts, the discussion works well.

[Captainant 28392]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Your graph shows EXACTLY that.  3 years after we imposed tariffs on lumber the price of lumber was much lower.  Shocking that in a global pandemic where production was shut down that prices increased.  Are you suggesting that lumber tariffs imposed in 2017 are responsible for large price spikes as a result of a global pandemic?

You're cherrypicking your data to pick out a local minima that is an outlier in the dataset. I am suggesting that the lumber tarrifs imposed materially increased lumber prices up until the pandemic - and that is borne out by the data as well. You don't get to just arbitrarily slice and dice the data to prove your talking point in a vacuum - it needs to jibe with the overall system of data surrounding it as well. Otherwise you're just sheeeeeitposting.

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Cloak Room in a nutshell.  I have tried to be civil but you are just too fucking stupid to even know what you are showing.  This is what I posted:

You're being incredibly selective and misleading in your representation and interpretation of the data. I'm not being uncivil, everyone is just poking holes in your fallacious point of view, and it's melting your snowflake.

[JimmyJames 12271]

“You can’t tax unrealized gains because constitution! Poors contribute nuttin’ but get all the government money!”

- Republican bootlickers.

”Well how about property taxes? And don’t the poor pay sales tax every single day, payroll taxes if they have a job slinging burgers, and property taxes if they own a house even in a ghetto?”

- surly Libs 

“Don’t bortion muh guns!”

 - Republican bootlickers

[sheeeit 129]

1 minute ago, Blotto said:

speaking of cherry picked data, your chart (with no citation) does not even show price, just rate of change of price. So if an item starts at $100, experiences a price change of 18% it is now $118. If the price then falls 5%, the price is now $112. When the spikes are larger on the increase side, prices go up. i shouldn't have to explain that, but I'm not sure you even understand what that graph illustrates.  God I hope you're not an econ grad with logic like that.

Meanwhile I provided  a much more detailed look at actual prices, with an explanation of the mechanics behind those price movements which you fail to address. If you're going to claim that prices went down, provide data which verifies that (your chart does not). 

 

How do you consider this a much more detailed look at pricing?  Your quoted says prices went up, initially, as a result of tariffs.  No one disputed that.  But then they went down.

I added a link to my post.  I posted directly from the BLS CPI for laundry equipment.  Do you know how the CPI works?  It is not at all what you posted above.  They use a baseline price and then track the percentage that prices are higher or lower than the baseline.  Look at the graph.  Even accounting for Covid the consumer price index, as of today, is lower than it was before the tariffs were imposed.  The tariffs are still on and the price, even after massive surges due to covid shutdowns and supply chain issues is already below the price from pre tariff days. 

[Blotto 23974]

38 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

How do you consider this a much more detailed look at pricing?  Your quoted says prices went up, initially, as a result of tariffs.  No one disputed that.  But then they went down.

I added a link to my post.  I posted directly from the BLS CPI for laundry equipment.  Do you know how the CPI works?  It is not at all what you posted above.  They use a baseline price and then track the percentage that prices are higher or lower than the baseline.  Look at the graph.  Even accounting for Covid the consumer price index, as of today, is lower than it was before the tariffs were imposed.  The tariffs are still on and the price, even after massive surges due to covid shutdowns and supply chain issues is already below the price from pre tariff days. 

Well when I replied, I had no idea what I was looking at as there was no context other than "3 month percent change", which doesnt imply "They use a baseline price and then track the percentage that prices are higher or lower than the baseline". Now you have a link, but it doesnt work. so I still dont know what it shows. but I suspect you're still full of shit, because this chart, also from the BLS would not mesh with your claims.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Blotto

[sheeeit 129]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're cherrypicking your data to pick out a local minima that is an outlier in the dataset. I am suggesting that the lumber tarrifs imposed materially increased lumber prices up until the pandemic

LOL. Based on what?  This is becoming bizzaro world.  The tariffs were imposed around May or so of 2017 at a rate of 20%-24% and the price of lumber at the time was about 385.  There was a spike in 2018 (not related to the tariffs) but from late 2018 up until the time that Canadian lumber mills cut production due to Covid which was March 2020 the price of lumber was fairly constant and under the price of 385 for more of the time than above.  You make statements that have no basis in reality.  How can you make a statement that tariffs imposed in May of 2017 "materially increased lumber prices up until the pandemic" when there were 18 months between that time from September 2018 until March 2020 where the average prices were actually lower than May of 2017.

And a funny thing happened in 2018 when prices spiked due to increased demand.  The 4 biggest lumber companies in the US all opened new mills and spent half a billion dollars doing it.  Again, just like I said above, lots of things happen as a result of tariffs.  

[jimmyjazz 46979]

6 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

LOL. Based on what?  This is becoming bizzaro world.  The tariffs were imposed around May or so of 2017 at a rate of 20%-24% and the price of lumber at the time was about 385.  There was a spike in 2018 (not related to the tariffs)

LMFAO.

a) how do you know it wasn't related to the tariffs?

b) a "spike" implies a near-instantaneous jump in price.  In fact, your chart shows price climbing steadily from the implementation tariffs to mid-2018.  It's far more likely to be related to tariffs than some coincidence.

c) the farther we move in time from the economic event (tariffs), the less likely subsequent price swings are due to the event.

Negged.

[sheeeit 129]

12 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Well when I replied, I had no idea what I was looking at as there was no context other than "3 month percent change", which doesnt imply "They use a baseline price and then track the percentage that prices are higher or lower than the baseline". Now you have a link, but it doesnt work. so I still dont know what it shows. but I suspect you're still full of shit, because this chart, also from the BLS would not mesh with your claims.

Jesus.  I don't know how to do a link any different.  Try this https://data.bls.gov/search/query/results?cx=013738036195919377644%3A6ih0hfrgl50&q=laundry+equipment

Then click on laundry.  Your chart above does not show what you think it does in relation to what we are talking about.  The BLS CPI clearly shows that the consumer price for laundry equipment was much lower one year after the tariffs were put in place and well before we had ever heard of Covid.  It further shows that as of today 11/2/2021 the average consumer price for laundry equipment is LESS than it was the day the tariffs were enacted.

[sheeeit 129]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMFAO.

a) how do you know it wasn't related to the tariffs?

b) a "spike" implies a near-instantaneous jump in price.  In fact, your chart shows price climbing steadily from the implementation tariffs to mid-2018.  It's far more likely to be related to tariffs than some coincidence.

c) the farther we move in time from the economic event (tariffs), the less likely subsequent price swings are due to the event.

Negged.

https://www.connerindustries.com/2018-perfect-storm-high-lumber-prices/

I hate responding to idiots.  You couldn't be more wrong or more uninformed on the industry.  

Plus, when the tariffs were imposed on lumber why didn't the price of lumber go up immediately?  Based on your logic, the price for lumber should have jumped 20% in the months after the tariffs were put in place.  They didn't.  In fact, for the next 5 months prices actually dropped.  Apparently the Canadian and Mexican lumber companies do not know how to raise prices.  Further, how is it possible that if tariffs always increase prices and that cost always gets passed onto the consumer that the price for lumber 18 months after the tariffs were put in place was over 30% lower than the price was before the tariffs?  

Maybe, like I keep saying, the long term effects of tariffs are hard to quantify and, in many cases as I have shown, the net result is actually lower prices for US consumers.  I know that is hard for you to understand but the numbers don't lie.

 

[jimmyjazz 46979]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Plus, when the tariffs were imposed on lumber why didn't the price of lumber go up immediately?  Based on your logic, the price for lumber should have jumped 20% in the months after the tariffs were put in place.  They didn't.  In fact, for the next 5 months prices actually dropped.

I'm looking at your chart.  You made the claim that the tariffs were implemented in April 2017.  The chart is only marked in years, so I have to eyeball it. but it sure looks to me that the price of lumber climbed pretty steadily until maybe May 2018, when it started collapsing.  Are we talking about two different things here?

[wildcat09 29559]

Stop quoting the troll, please.

[Blotto 23974]

51 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Jesus.  I don't know how to do a link any different.  Try this https://data.bls.gov/search/query/results?cx=013738036195919377644%3A6ih0hfrgl50&q=laundry+equipment

Then click on laundry.  Your chart above does not show what you think it does in relation to what we are talking about.  The BLS CPI clearly shows that the consumer price for laundry equipment was much lower one year after the tariffs were put in place and well before we had ever heard of Covid.  It further shows that as of today 11/2/2021 the average consumer price for laundry equipment is LESS than it was the day the tariffs were enacted.

So its your contention that after annual price inflation of what appears to be roughly +6.5% , -2.5%, + 2.5%, +19% that prices are over all lower?  I still think your chart shows exactly what I stated, its only relative to the price 3 months before. Otherwise how could changing the duration parameter to 6 or 12 months lead to these results:

absolute prices are either lower than in 2017 or they are not. the trend should be "negative" (below 0) in all 3 cases, no? On the other hand, if you just assume that what is being plotted is the price relative to the variable time frame defined in the data query (3 months, 6 months or 12 months), it all makes sense and would be consistent with the overall CPS inflation chart I posted twice earlier. please explain why 6 month and 12 month charts show diff results, I'm here to learn.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Blotto

[wildcat09 29559]

God damnit Blotto, you are not engaged in a discussion with a good faith interlocutor. You're arguing with a troll who will fuck with you for the next ten years if you keep taking the bait. Knock it off.

[Beau Vine 55824]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

LOL. Based on what?  This is becoming bizzaro world.  The tariffs were imposed around May or so of 2017 at a rate of 20%-24% and the price of lumber at the time was about 385.  There was a spike in 2018 (not related to the tariffs) but from late 2018 up until the time that Canadian lumber mills cut production due to Covid which was March 2020 the price of lumber was fairly constant and under the price of 385 for more of the time than above.  You make statements that have no basis in reality.  How can you make a statement that tariffs imposed in May of 2017 "materially increased lumber prices up until the pandemic" when there were 18 months between that time from September 2018 until March 2020 where the average prices were actually lower than May of 2017.

And a funny thing happened in 2018 when prices spiked due to increased demand.  The 4 biggest lumber companies in the US all opened new mills and spent half a billion dollars doing it.  Again, just like I said above, lots of things happen as a result of tariffs.  

Seriously, no one is actually this stupid, are they?

[fattyflattie 4640]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It overwhelmingly helps middle class (white) Americans and bleeds the poor dry to do so, and then takes a large chunk from working professionals, self-employed, and small business owners to cover what the poor can't.

This is how we’re talking past each other. can you provide any legit parameters for each class, or what studies like this use?  I can Google of course but you seem well educated on the subject, and likely have something better. I saw the wealth chart above, looking more towards income.  

 

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

Median upper class family wealth is just south of $1MM. You've been hanging out with JohnnySilverSpoon too much, donk.

This is astonishing to me.  If you’re including retirement savings and any equity in a house, I would think this is something most have accomplished around 40? 

[SydneyCarton 49328]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

This is how we’re talking past each other. can you provide any legit parameters for each class, or what studies like this use?  I can Google of course but you seem well educated on the subject, and likely have something better. I saw the wealth chart above, looking more towards income.  

 

This is astonishing to me.  If you’re including retirement savings and any equity in a house, I would think this is something most have accomplished around 40? 

Uh, define “most.” Seriously you realize a vast majority of Americans have less than 20k in savings and live paycheck to paycheck, right? Obviously not…

[Anastasis 23699]

The disconnect between middle income and middle class is increasingly stark. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

26 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Uh, define “most.” Seriously you realize a vast majority of Americans have less than 20k in savings and live paycheck to paycheck, right? Obviously not…

I was going to say most college educated, but really, most anyone who maxes out their 401k.  I remember precisely when that moment clicked for me.  Formally uneducated guy I worked with who went from yard gopher to sales who was my age was down about his 401k.  Started talking about it with him a bit and come to find out the had something like 700k in there. Just under 20 years at same company. Would be tremendously surprised if he was making more than 75k for vast majority of that time.   Read again. Angleton HS education.  Under 40.  Had nearly 3/4m in one vessel.  Every single place I’ve worked (other than when I was doing my own thing) had retirement plans, even back to jobs in high school.   Unfortunately I didn’t start maxing mine until in my late 20’s. Godamnit. 

[Bullneck 19454]

6 hours ago, sheeeit said:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

That data is cherry picked.  There was an initial spike in prices due to the tariffs but, as I keep saying, demand and production changed and by April of 2020 the prices were, in fact, lower than before the tariffs.

Considering your boy Trump is the cause of just about every ill in the country these days (economic or not) we don't appreciate the finger pointing. 

[Bullneck 19454]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

This is how we’re talking past each other. can you provide any legit parameters for each class, or what studies like this use?  I can Google of course but you seem well educated on the subject, and likely have something better. I saw the wealth chart above, looking more towards income.  

 

This is astonishing to me.  If you’re including retirement savings and any equity in a house, I would think this is something most have accomplished around 40? 

Really?  $1mm by age 40?  Most people don't have their student loans paid off by then. 

[immamac 44200]

6 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Maybe you need to clarify this.  Are you saying that if someone takes out a loan against an asset, that the loan proceeds should be taxed as if they were income or that the asset used to collateralize the loan should be taxed at that point?  

I'm saying if you take a loan out on an asset that has an unrealized gain, the money that is leveraged by that unrealized gain should be taxed as ordinary income upon the funding of that loan.

borrowing all the way up to 100% of your cost basis should not be taxed at all, regardless of that was a loan to begin with or not. (Cash out refi to your cost basis on a house should be allowed without tax implications, tax out refi above tapping into equity built without paying cash down should be)

Same thing with Stocks/financial instruments.

If you own stock, or are granted stock you should be able to leverage (margin trade, or collateralize) up to your cost basis without having tax implications. If you have an unrealized gain and use that gain for leverage/collateralized lending/margin you should pay those taxes upon funding of that instrument. 

Stock options when executed immediately become unrealized gain (usually, thats why people execute them for their "lower" strike price). If you turn around and get a loan against your millions in stock now you should absolutely pay taxes against that instead of just interest. 

RSU or Stock Grants already have a taxable event when they are issued. A lot of people instead of selling stock to pay the taxes that are due collateralize the stock and just pay interest so they can realize gains to pay their original taxes on the cost basis. It's completely fucking bonkers. 

1031 exchanges should also have a maximium deferral period or maximum multiplier for deferring original cost basis (10/20/30 years or death) 

 

[immamac 44200]

It's astounding how financially illiterate these people who are talking shit about poor people are.

[SydneyCarton 49328]

36 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I was going to say most college educated, but really, most anyone who maxes out their 401k.  I remember precisely when that moment clicked for me.  Formally uneducated guy I worked with who went from yard gopher to sales who was my age was down about his 401k.  Started talking about it with him a bit and come to find out the had something like 700k in there. Just under 20 years at same company. Would be tremendously surprised if he was making more than 75k for vast majority of that time.   Read again. Angleton HS education.  Under 40.  Had nearly 3/4m in one vessel.  Every single place I’ve worked (other than when I was doing my own thing) had retirement plans, even back to jobs in high school.   Unfortunately I didn’t start maxing mine until in my late 20’s. Godamnit. 

It’s like you didn’t even read my post and decided to just tell a random story. The average amount of savings a season in their 40s has is something like 40k. You act like the entire planet has jobs with access to 401ks. They do not. You seem woefully naive or uninformed. 

[SydneyCarton 49328]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

It's astounding how financially illiterate these people who are talking shit about poor people are.

It’s almost as if many are not very smart, probably had quite a few advantages in life, and aren’t very worldly. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

10 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Really?  $1mm by age 40?  Most people don't have their student loans paid off by then. 

I’m not talking liquid accounts. Retirement, home equity, other investment vehicles.  If you can’t find a way to significantly contribute to  out your retirement, you might be living outside your means.  Every situation is different, but the taking out 150k in loans to teach elementary school thread is ——> iirc. 

[immamac 44200]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not talking liquid accounts. Retirement, home equity, other investment vehicles.  If you can’t find a way to significantly contribute to  out your retirement, you might be living outside your means.  Every situation is different, but the taking out 150k in loans to teach elementary school thread is ——> iirc. 

Are you seriously this stupid? 

[fattyflattie 4640]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You act like the entire planet has jobs with access to 401ks. They do not. You seem woefully naive or uninformed. 

I’ve been around this planet several times, well to the places that produce a lot of, or use a lot of oil, anyhow. The people in most of the places I worked are worried about their next meal, not how can we fuck Bezos because it’s not fair!      

[hobbes2702 13351]

Just now, immamac said:

Are you seriously this stupid? 

Yes. He seriously is.

[jimmyjazz 46979]

Why are you talking about "wise" retirement planning as if it's fact?  The truth is, a bunch of people have no hope of ever getting there, and a bunch more have no financial knowledge to get there.

Regardless of why, there are a shit ton of people who are still month to month well past 40, with no substantial liquid or illiquid assets.  Criticizing them for getting in that situation is . . . OK . . . I guess, but ignoring the fact that the situation exists is foolish.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

Are you seriously this stupid? 

I guess so. If my dumbass can figure it out, how fucking dumb do you have to be to not be able to? 

[SydneyCarton 49328]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’ve been around this planet several times, well to the places that produce a lot of, or use a lot of oil, anyhow. The people in most of the places I worked are worried about their next meal, not how can we fuck Bezos because it’s not fair!      

I notice you’re not actually commenting on the substance of my post for the second time on this page. “I’ve seen poor people” isn’t really a refutation of anything I’ve said.

Edited November 2, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[fattyflattie 4640]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Criticizing them for getting in that situation is . . . OK . . . I guess, but ignoring the fact that the situation exists is foolish.

I’m not ignoring that it exists, just astonished the thought behind them getting a free pass because…reasons. 

[jimmyjazz 46979]

You're a flat tax moron.  There is no discussion to be had.

[immamac 44200]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

I guess so. If my dumbass can figure it out, how fucking dumb do you have to be to not be able to? 

do you make 6 figures? How long have you made 6 figures? You understand that 100k+ is well over what 90% of people in the US will ever make in their top earning years?

The median income, meaning 50% of households in the US make less than 70k a year, that generally means 2 earners. That's at least 40M households, likely more that would need to save 10% of their salary for 5 years to move into a median priced house. 

You may think "averages" are what you are comparing yourself to and may think you are "average", the American "average" is heavily skewed by all the fucking rich people, that's how fucking absurd their earnings are. 

[Anastasis 23699]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why are you talking about "wise" retirement planning as if it's fact?  The truth is, a bunch of people have no hope of ever getting there, and a bunch more have no financial knowledge to get there.

Regardless of why, there are a shit ton of people who are still month to month well past 40, with no substantial liquid or illiquid assets.  Criticizing them for getting in that situation is . . . OK . . . I guess, but ignoring the fact that the situation exists is foolish.

Can we just stop calling those people middle class?

[SydneyCarton 49328]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not ignoring that it exists, just astonished the thought behind them getting a free pass because…reasons. 

You think most folks at 40 have around a million in paper assets/net worth. The reality is the average 40 year old has 30-40k saved. That disparity in understanding of actual reality versus your complete ignorance guarantees you’ll never legitimately understand the conversation at hand, much less the problems that are going to result from it in 20 or so years. 
 

we’d better all hope the wealth transfer when the boomers die helps out, but chances are it’s going to people who don’t need it, because Advantages. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

20 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not talking liquid accounts. Retirement, home equity, other investment vehicles.  If you can’t find a way to significantly contribute to  out your retirement, you might be living outside your means.  Every situation is different, but the taking out 150k in loans to teach elementary school thread is ——> iirc. 

You have very little grasp on reality. Or you’re just fucking trolling. Either way you appear really stupid to almost everyone here.

[JimmyJames 12271]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I guess so. If my dumbass can figure it out, how fucking dumb do you have to be to not be able to? 

Seriously. Are you this big of an idiot or just trolling? Genuinely curious. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

Just now, immamac said:

do you make 6 figures? How long have you made 6 figures? You understand that 100k+ is well over what 90% of people in the US will ever make in their top earning years?

The median income, meaning 50% of households in the US make less than 70k a year, that generally means 2 earners. That's at least 40M households, likely more that would need to save 10% of their salary for 5 years to move into a median priced house. 

You may think "averages" are what you are comparing yourself to and may think you are "average", the American "average" is heavily skewed by all the fucking rich people, that's how fucking absurd their earnings are. 

I’m not a nurse, but yes. I came out of (an affordable) school about 60-ish, and was around 100 before travel 3 years in.  Sort of topped out around 170 pre bonus over the next 7 years. Started to consult around year 10 for a whole lot fucking more, but am back to normal W2 life at the moment for less than peak earnings,  but with a clearer executive path.  I know I didn’t do nearly as well as my state school peers for the most part, but such is life.  Wife makes shit though because she’s trying to do work that gets her to heaven. So basically single income family. 
 

That’s precisely why I asked upthread if anyone had a reliable income chart showing  poor (not poverty), middle, and upper class brackets.   It’s not hard to be shielded by location, industry, age, etc   
 

Right now I run a crew that most never even completed high school. Half don’t speak English  They work 72 hr weeks and most are over $28/hr straight time.  Everyone one of them should be “poor” but they work their ass off so they aren’t.  

 

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You have very little grasp on reality. Or you’re just fucking trolling. Either way you appear really stupid to almost everyone here.

Yes. This enlightened board of folks living in near 7 figure Austin real estate that have such a firm grasp on what it means to be poor. 

[immamac 44200]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not a nurse, but yes. I came out of (an affordable) school about 60-ish, and was around 100 before travel 3 years in.  Sort of topped out around 170 pre bonus over the next 7 years. Started to consult around year 10 for a whole lot fucking more, but am back to normal W2 life at the moment for less than peak earnings,  but with a clearer executive path.  I know I didn’t do nearly as well as my state school peers for the most part, but such is life.  Wife makes shit though because she’s trying to do work that gets her to heaven. So basically single income family. 
 

That’s precisely why I asked upthread if anyone had a reliable income chart showing  poor (not poverty), middle, and upper class brackets.   It’s not hard to be shielded by location, industry, age, etc   
 

Right now I run a crew that most never even completed high school. Half don’t speak English  They work 72 hr weeks and most are over $28/hr straight time.  Everyone one of them should be “poor” but they work their ass off so they aren’t.  

 

 

72 hours a week at 28/hr is 100k. 
 

28/hr is also a pretty great wage especially with benefits. 

[SydneyCarton 49328]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes. This enlightened board of folks living in near 7 figure Austin real estate that have such a firm grasp on what it means to be poor. 

Theyve demonstrated they have a better concept than you do. And before you argue your previous post legit asked for references so you could understand household incomes 

[fattyflattie 4640]

Just now, immamac said:

72 hours a week at 28/hr is 100k. 
 

28/hr is also a pretty great wage especially with benefits. 

I know, and they make a fuckload of overtime.  And most never finished high school. That’s why I don’t understand it, I suppose. Some literally have no skill other can show up and sometimes not fuck things up. 

[SydneyCarton 49328]

I can see the “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps so anyone can do it” framework being erected from fucking outer space. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I can see the “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps so anyone can do it” framework being erected from fucking outer space. 

I’ve got poor family out in east Texas.  Many afflicted by some type of mental situation, addiction, sometimes a mix of both.  But I understand why they are poor. They don’t gaf not to be.  They are not going to work 1/10th as hard as the Mexican and Guatemalans on my crew.  I have to make those fuckers take their Sunday’s off, or they’ll literally join a crew for day work on Sunday’s.  Not to mention sleeping 3-4 to a room to save their $80/day perdiem.   Those guys refuse to be poor.  I know johnnysack catches a lot of shit here, but his tenets of things to avoid and you won’t be poor is pretty spot on.  Are some people never going to have a chance, of course.  But if you follow those 5-6 things he quotes, you should not be poor in America. And by “poor” I mean you should be well off enough that you can contribute something to income tax.  
 

Apologies to the board for going off topic. I was not trolling, just a dumbass I guess.  Interested in seeing more tax talk, it fascinates me. I’ll not contribute. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not a nurse, but yes. I came out of (an affordable) school about 60-ish, and was around 100 before travel 3 years in.  Sort of topped out around 170 pre bonus over the next 7 years. Started to consult around year 10 for a whole lot fucking more, but am back to normal W2 life at the moment for less than peak earnings,  but with a clearer executive path.  I know I didn’t do nearly as well as my state school peers for the most part, but such is life.  Wife makes shit though because she’s trying to do work that gets her to heaven. So basically single income family. 
 

That’s precisely why I asked upthread if anyone had a reliable income chart showing  poor (not poverty), middle, and upper class brackets.   It’s not hard to be shielded by location, industry, age, etc   
 

Right now I run a crew that most never even completed high school. Half don’t speak English  They work 72 hr weeks and most are over $28/hr straight time.  Everyone one of them should be “poor” but they work their ass off so they aren’t.  

 

 

Does your “crew” have a million dollars in net worth yet? If not, why not?

[JimmyJames 12271]

So is this thread required to have at least one poster acting like a total dumbass at all time? Is this some sort of college class experiment?