Almost like the wealthy should be taxed 90% and healthcare should be free, and rent should be strictly regulated, and everyone should have a labor union.
How about this. If you make it to a net worth of $1 Billion, we get you a nice gold plaque that says, "Congratulations! You have won capitalism." Then, any income you earn after that is taxed at 100%.
Income and net worth are different concepts though. You can have a car and be too broke to buy gas.
I think you might be failing to envision just how much money a billion dollars is. If your net worth (Assets - Liabilities + Equity) = one billion dollars, you are among the wealthiest of the wealthiest people in the world.
Now, that probably isn't all just sitting in investments. I'll be very conservative and say half of it is. If you earned 4% annually on that $500M, which is a pretty decent average, you would gross $20 Million.
I don't know about you, but if I had $20 Million, I would never have to work another day for the rest of my life. You see where I'm going with this?
You can always move to a town in Greece, in the mainland (something smaller than 5k people), close to the beach. You can live amply with 20k euros per year (about $22k) for you and your spouse. Buying a house is about $100k to $150k, taxes are rather low for most professions, and you can have your own vegetable garden, trees, and chickens. Fresh fish, goat meat (best kind of meat for humans). Car repairs and other repairs are much cheaper than in the US (my husband was expecting a $2500 bill to replace the car engine's chain, and it was just $600).
If you're in your 30s right now, and you're going to live until you're 100, that's "only" 1.4 million euros. If you get a couple of kids, that's 1.8 to 2 mil euros. Definitely not 20 million though.
What incentive is there to keep working at a 90% tax burden?
They did in the 40s and 50s when wealth ttaxes were that high. 10% of a billion is still a 100 million.
Well if they stop working they make 0. 10% of any income is still more than zero, and this would likely be bracketed so high that there'd be at least a million or two in lower tax bands.
Edit: also strictly, the comment you replied to said "the wealthy" this could refer to a wealth tax rather than an income tax, where stopping working would just remove the income but not affect the tax burden at all—i.e. a pretty terrible idea if you want to remain wealthy
What incentive is there to keep working at a 90% tax burden?
Why do people volunteer for free?
The Beatles' "Taxman" refers to a 95% tax rate that they were complaining about. Yet they still went on to produce more records and earn more money (and yes, work).
If someone has enough money to live a life of luxury, they'll keep doing what they do to earn that life of luxury.
People volunteer for causes they think are worthy. I would never do the work I get paid to do for free or for 10% of gross pay. I'd just find a less stressful job, work way less and make about the same.
I don't see any problem there! Lol
The issue is that right now I'm willing to put in the extra effort for the return early in my career. If the government were to effectively cap income potential, some workers who would otherwise be more productive (or who perform a highly specialized service) will not bother, creating a labor shortage and increasing costs. Not a smart move if you're a country with an inflation problem that's been trending very close to full employment.
It would also make occupations like medicine that have long runways to earning even less attractive.
good thing people who are this productive tends to not be billionaires
Money is not the only motivator.
As well, someone in the top tax bracket paying 95% tax on their income over $500,000 is still making a lot more than someone in the bottom tax bracket paying effectively 0% tax.
No one makes that much money through work, it is through investments. Remove social security tax limits and beef up our nationalized retirement systems then tax investments to death. I don't care if people are disincentivised from investing in businesses that don't make any money. I know I'll ruffle some feathers with this but I truly believe all space travel investments should be redirected to something that can make an immediate difference for those already on the planet, like healthcare or services for those effected by climate change.
Fame and glory? You think Elon Musk notices an extra billion dollars here and there, or do you think he likes being the Lord of X and the Master of Tesla?
If you consider yourself broke and would like help, please make a post here. I and many others would love to help, but we need some information, such as:
A lot of people get discouraged and believe that they're screwed, but I firmly believe there's always a way to financial stability, it just takes a lot of work and humility.
That's very noble of you, but in our capitalist systems, those who provide the most needed and valuable services are often paid the least. You may feel that telling someone to get better educated and moving somewhere cheaper will solve their problem, but then someone else will fill their past role. Our most expensive cities will always need janitors, line cooks, laborers, shelf stockers and many other roles that will never pay much. We can't all be coders making 6 figures working remotely from bumbfuck nowhere. This doesn't even take into account disabled people who can't provide much or any value in the eyes of our system. You basically want to tell people to bootstrap, just in a gentler way.
Um, no. I want to help people end their own cycle of poverty. There's nothing wrong with being a janitor, line cook, etc, and my point here isn't to push people to change their careers, but to end the paycheck to paycheck cycle and get more control over their financials. That's it.
My offer stands. If you or anyone else wants to discuss personal finance, provide some details and I or someone else here would love to lend a pair of eyes. However, if you're intent on maintaining your status quo, I guess good luck to you and I hope you find success in whatever way you choose to define it.
I'm not sure why you got up on your soapbox to put someone down like that. They didn't say any of the things you said. Their comment isn't even edited, and yours is...
Because this is a forum where people share perspectives. If you don't want to hear them then don't read the comments.
Lol. You wrote a comment in reply to another comment. Usually replies are for responding to what the preceding comment said. Perspectives that follow the preceding perspectives.
If you want to say something about things that nobody has said, you can just make a new post.
The original post is that 50% of Americans consider themselves 'broke'.
@sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works a solution that would be considerate if 0.1% of working class Americans considered themselves broke.
@iamdisillusioned@lemmy.world offers an analysis why a 'pull yourself together' solution doesn't work when the issue starts hitting 50+% of a nation. That means there's something systemically going wrong and any suggested 'pull yourself by the bootstraps' solution is going to be met with more and more anger from a larger and larger crowd.
That's a bit reductionist.
A large chunk of the US fritter away their money on interest, and that's precisely the type of problem that can be solved with careful budgeting. Here's a report by Forbes about debt, and I'll highlight this section on credit card debt:
Credit Card debt details
In 2022, 48% of all credit card users carried a balance at least once based on Federal Reserve data. While families with higher income levels were less likely to report revolving a balance, the proportion of cardholders was substantial across all income levels.
According to a Forbes Advisor survey from December 2023, 22% of credit cardholders are either somewhat or very unconfident they can pay their next credit card bill in full.
And some more details from a Federal Reserve report (referenced by the above section), which states that 37% of families making $100k or more carried a balance. That income is well above the level most claim to need to feel financially secure. That doesn't mean a $100k salary is insufficient, it means there's more to the discussion than just income.
Personal anecdote about staying debt free in school
My parents helped me with school tuition, but I paid my own rent, food, transportation, etc while making around minimum wage (first job was $0.50 over min wage, second was $2 over). I know it's possible to live debt free on pretty much any income, provided work is steady, because I've done it. Student loan repayments are capped at 10% of discretionary income in the US (so after taxes), with 20% being the worst case (it varies by program). So I don't think student loans are the main issue either.
Examples of spending problems
I don't know if careful budgeting can fix all of the problems the 50% quoted in the article have, but it can certainly help with a lot of them, if not most. Issues vary, but a large percentage of problems aren't income problems, but spending problems, such as:
My point here is that a very large chunk of that 50% could be much more financially stable by making a few behavioral changes. However, it's a lot easier to claim to be a victim than to make those changes, so that's why these types of articles get a lot of traction and comments are largely unconstructive.
If you actually want to change your financial trajectory, talking about it can help. Making a post here detailing your income, expenses, debts, etc is one way to do that. A budget isn't going to help someone living on the streets suddenly afford an apartment, but if you have a steady job, there's a really good chance that a reasonable budget can end the paycheck to paycheck cycle. And I'm guessing a very large chunk of that 50% in the article would fall into this category.
Explain how it is reductionist to say that when there's over 50% of a whole nation that's in financial woes?
If anything trying to blame the each individual's actions is reductionist.
It paralyzes any political discussion in order to uphold an ever fragile status quo.
How many more people in your own country need to into debt before
you start calling it a systemic issue? 80%? 90%? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?
Whatever your solution is going to be, people's incomes are going to go down,
as everything is being automated.
Grocery stores are being automated.
Fast food chains are being automated.
Any brick-and-mortar store is disappearing.
Artists are being replaced
Your personal anecdote is worthless.
I delivered magazines, newspapers and mowed lawns when I was a kid.
Good luck telling the Gen Z that!
And if you don't understand whe, I'll try be as reductionist as possible
in how my (and your) personal anecdote doesn't work anymore:
Internet, AI & robots has set up the us the bomb
All your income are belong to FAANG!!
You have no chance to survive make your time
Move Cap Install Com
For great justice!
over 50% of a whole nation that’s in financial woes?
This is self-reported data, so there's no consistent definition of what "broke" means. It could mean anything from "I literally can't afford food" to "I'm stressed about my finances," and the causes are as diverse as the definitions of "broke." The Fed reports that 77% are at least doing "okay" financially, so that's a pretty big disconnect. On the Expenses side, 82% of people are able to pay the current month's expenses, and that's consistent across all income levels until we get to the <$25k/year level, which is 67% ($25k is $12.50/hr).
So I'm going to cite some other sources to hopefully get more information about it. Here's another survey by PennyHoarder about budgeting, and some takeaways:
And here's another that discusses how Americans overspend their budgets.
When I look at this data, it seems there's a lot of people who could benefit from more transparency in their finances. I don't see a systemic issue where half of the population is drowning in debt, what I see is a large chunk of the population who need better financial education.
people’s incomes are going to go down, as everything is being automated.
That's not a given. Technological advances tend to increase wages, the main issue is churn in the labor market as people adjust to the new opportunities the new tech has created.
I see this automation as a good thing. Yes, it sucks for people in the short-term whose jobs get replaced, but if there's something the market is good at, it's adapting to changes in labor supply. Sometimes there's sustained unemployment, but that's rare and often due to protectionist policies (e.g. I blame the Great Depression on Hoover's tariffs). If we truly can't compete with bots, we can always tax capital from bots and provide something like Universal Basic Income (my preference is Negative Income Tax, which is the same thing, but with income caps for benefits).
I delivered magazines, newspapers and mowed lawns when I was a kid. Good luck telling the Gen Z that!
What are you talking about? I literally just paid a neighborhood kid to mow my lawn yesterday.
Delivering magazines and newspapers was a very uncommon job even at its heyday (my brother did it in the 90s, but that's the only kid I heard of doing it), whereas mowing laws and other small jobs are still about as common as it was in the past.
But I'm not sure why you're referencing Gen Z, Gen Z will be in their 20s already, so they wouldn't be interested in those neighborhood jobs, unless they make it a business (and two families in my neighborhood run small landscaping businesses, and I see landscaping trucks every day in my city).
If someone wants to hustle for a little more money, there are a lot of options:
These kinds of service jobs won't be replaced by robots anytime soon, and that's extra true for the trades (e.g. plumbers, electricians, etc) where there are generally strict codes and licensing requirements. If you decide not to go to post-secondary education, you have lots of options for consistent or inconsistent work, depending on what you're looking for.
I think there should be some policy changes (i.e. I'm a fan of NIT/UBI as mentioned), but the real problem is the same problem that we've had for pretty much forever: people really like blaming others for their problems. If you want help, there are a lot of opportunities out there, they just require work to go out and get. It's a lot easier to whine and blame the issues on "capitalism" or "political party of choice," but honestly, the average person is way better off today than pretty much any point in history, yet we seem to complain way more.
They're asking for info so they can help with a budget or a debt paying strategy.
A budget is a luxury that requires a minimum amount of income. They are presuming people are just being bad with their money, and it completely sidesteps the real issue and story here that income is far too low for basic costs for a large number of people.
It reeks of "work harder" bullshit.
It's a good thing they're offering more than budget help.
Hahahaha. Are you preaching work harder pick yourselves up by your bootstraps?
People need to make a minimum amount of money to do that. If their housing alone is more than 50% of their income, what you are thinking won't work. The money isn't there.
Also, changing jobs and moving are luxuries that some people struggle to enjoy. Sometimes it requires money upfront, sometimes it requires education people may not have, or some people are unfairly held back with disabilities.
I think you are genuinely trying to help, but this does smell a bit of never having experienced being "in the red" poor no matter what you do. Those people have next to no options.
I'm talking like $30k in income, which far too many families deal with and is unliveable anywhere.
If you're making $30k, you qualify for a ton of welfare programs throughout the country. So saying "$30k income isn't livable" doesn't make sense on its own without taking into account the various programs available. It may still be unlivable, but the income number on its own can't really determine that.
So that's why talking about expenses and skills is important. Many problems can be solved with proper budgeting, but some may need a job change to increase income. Increasing income on its own can't solve budgeting problems (i.e. "you can't outrun your fork"). Even people with middle and upper middle class incomes live paycheck to paycheck, nearly 1/3 of lottery winners go bankrupt, and nearly 80% of retired NFL players go broke. The reason behind most of those is the same thing I'm talking about: lack of personal finance education and skills.
Not all problems can be solved with budgeting and changing jobs, but a lot of them can be. That's why I recommend anyone who would like to improve their situation to reach out, more often than not a few extra pairs of eyes can help get you on track to financial security.
You sure make knowledge of and access to resources sound sooooooo simple.
I'm happy to help.
Sounds about right, when nearly 80% are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
It's a long-standing theme. Thomas Pikettey claims that, throughout the 20th century, about 50% of people own nothing, 40% own their "stuff" - house & car - and 10% own everything else. And, really, that it's even just the top 2-3% who own the vast majority of that everything-else, except for a brief window after world wars destroyed all the capital, and temporarily put the world into a slightly less unequal condition.
I've come to the conclusion that I will be broke for the rest of my life. Outside of a winning lottery ticket, there is no way I will ever have a day when I'm not dodging collection agencies, praying I don't get pulled over for expired tags (because I can't afford insurance), or being one missed paycheck away from homelessness.
And since cheap liquor only comes in plastic bottles (and therefore when thrown will not explode on impact), I don't see any way to change anything.
If you'd like someone to review your income and expenses, I'm willing to help, and I'm sure many others are as well. Please make a post if you would like some advice.
I appreciate the offer, but my income just isn't enough to live on. I track every penny and while there are a few expenses I could cut, the money saved by depriving myself of those little luxuries wouldn't pay a single overdue bill. And after job searching for almost an entire year while unemployed, I also know there are no higher paying jobs that I'm capable of getting.
That may be, or it may not. I don't know your income, expenses, or what's reasonable in your area. However, if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got, and by your own words, what you've got isn't working for you.
If you think your income is the issue and you're having trouble finding better paying work, you should probably try something different. Talk to a career counselor, get a certification/degree, start a business, etc. There are lots of options for improving your job options, such as:
You can't control who will pay you, but you do control how you spend your money and your time. Getting a better paying job takes a lot more than just sending out applications, it involves being bold, following up (call places you've applied), and adjusting your resume based on the feedback you're getting (if you're not getting interviews, make some changes for the next batch of applications, and ideally tailor your resume for each job). You have nothing to lose when applying for a job (worst they can do is say no), so you might as well give it your all.
but you _do_ control how you spend your money and your time.
This is a privileged viewpoint that doesn't realize that the poor literally have less time and less flexibility, and in a lot of cases no control over how they spend their money because it ALL goes into basic necessities like housing and food.
There's a reason they say the easiest way to get rich is to start with a lot of money. Money buys flexibility and time. When you are very poor, there is a ceiling that is near impossible to break out of without a lot of luck and some form of privilege that one may not recognize others might not have the same access to.
I broke out of that through years of turmoil in school and obscene student debts. I would not have been as able to without someone to live with who took care of me (my now wife) and had a much better job than me at the time. I also likely would never have been able to if I were a parent at the time, or more severely disabled.
I caution how easy you make it sound. It's offensive to some who literally can't "just go to night school." Time is a luxury the rich have more of than the poor.
the poor literally have less time and less flexibility
I never said it's easy, I said it's important. In fact, the harder it is to stick to a budget, the more important it is. I'm not going to preach budgeting to people who are already financially stable because that's not going to help them (I'd probably talk about investment strategies instead).
the easiest way to get rich is to start with a lot of money
It may be the easiest, but that assumes discipline. I think you're more likely to get rich if you start very little, but you're disciplined with it. Generational wealth tends to disappear after 3 generations, and a lot of that is because you're not as motivated to manage it well if you didn't earn it. If you don't believe me, look at various posts on Reddit or elsewhere where people regret wasting their inheritance, e.g. here and here, or this non-reddit story. People tend to suck at managing inherited money.
If you can manage to be financially stable, you have a lot more ability to take advantage of opportunities. Let's say a family member or friend is starting a company and needs help, but can't pay for a couple months until money starts coming in. If you have 3 months expenses saved up, you can jump on it because you know you can at least last three months. Maybe it goes bust, or maybe it ends up being a really good opportunity. But if you didn't have that safety buffer, you wouldn't be able to even try.
It's certainly not easy, but it is important. Being in debt is kind of like dealing with psychological trauma, and the steps are roughly:
In most cases, becoming financially stable is possible, and sometimes it takes a second pair of eyes to see it. The whole point here is to create hope from despair, with that hope can turn into action. I firmly believe the vast majority can achieve financial stability and eventually financial independence (i.e. have the option to retire), but it takes hard work and a plan. I can't help with the hard work, but I can help with the plan.
Our entire system is designed to make people spend every dollar they make on stupid toys and other things they don't need. People make hundreds of thousands a year and spend it all in monthly payments. I know lots of "well off" people who can't survive more than a few months before being in serious financial trouble.
As long as the payments can be made it's encouraged to just buy more and more and more.
I think most of these huge payments are not due to stupid toys, it's due to college debt, mortgages, and medical debt. I wish it was spent on toys instead.
For some that's true, but go count the number of trailers, ATVs, watercraft and other toys that way too many people have. Same goes for cars and houses. Buy the most expensive stuff you can so you can stay ahead of your friends!
Maybe get out of suburbia. There's far more people lower than middle class just struggling to survive, and toys are a luxury.
You completely missed the point of my comments.
The sad thing is that a nice toy is like 5% of the cost of 4 years of college tuition these days.
It's hard to feel financially secure when the big 3 expenses keep rising faster than inflation: Housing, college, and medical expenses, the latter of which is unexpected.
If only those 3 expenses were reasonable, then we would have more money to spend on things we like and enjoy.
at first glance the thumb nail looked like the box from hellraiser and I thought damn that's bleak.
Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!
Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)