291–300 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage gains are not being treated the same as investment gains. It's not like Bezos is taking home an hourly rate. Everybody at the real top is doing quite, quite well. That's why the concentration of wealth into a very few hands at the top marches on, not because of "wages".
AMZN is down 10+% over the last year so not sure about that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the relevance of tax brackets? Earning more nominally while standard of living going down is the same as earning less in real terms. “Moving up” in a tax bracket never means earning less in nominal or in real terms. It just means you get less in your pocket of the extra you earned, not of the total you earned.
I think two of the biggest falsehoods many people seem to believe about finances is that one, you don't want to move up in tax brackets because then you will suddenly be making less money. And two, that somehow businesses and business owners can just "write off" expenses so that those expenses don't actually cost them any money. There are a few edge cases where these can be technically true but they are rare and limi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but you're still earning more than if you haven't gotten that 5% raise.
And you’ll still be surprised that even though you’re in a higher tax bracket, your standard of living actually went down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the relevance of tax brackets? Earning more nominally while standard of living going down is the same as earning less in real terms. “Moving up” in a tax bracket never means earning less in nominal or in real terms. It just means you get less in your pocket of the extra you earned, not of the total you earned.
I feel like all the stupid comedy shows, especially in the 80s and 90s, making those episodes about getting a raise and earning less money, did a lot of damage to people's understanding of how taxes ACTUALLY work, and continues to ripple to this day, leading to comments like the one you are replying to.
0 - theguardian.com/money/2014/jul/20/benefits-cliff-minimum-wage-increase-backfire-poverty
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got a ~50% raise last year by changing jobs and switching to 1099. This year I did not get a raise, contract just renewed as is. So I got a 50% raise to start the year and after inflation took a 10% cut at the end of the year. I like the job but I think I have maxed the salary there so going to have to find a new one at the end of this year. Pretty unfortunate but I can't eat a pay cut every year. I have a feeling…
10% cut? Wasn't inflation about 6.2%?
Some things changing hit some people more than others. For example, high fuel prices would hit those very dependant on fuel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's no small secret that the world's billionaires saw >50% increase in wealth during the pandemic. https://www.reuters.com/business/pandemic-boosts-super-rich-...
This is very misleading. They took a massive cut in early 2020, so a lot of that is just recovery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's no small secret that the world's billionaires saw >50% increase in wealth during the pandemic. https://www.reuters.com/business/pandemic-boosts-super-rich-...
This is very misleading. They took a massive cut in early 2020, so a lot of that is just recovery.
It’s all a function of two things: 1. what percentage of your wealth is where, (ie home, stock market, checking account) and 2. Even if you and a rich man are both 80% in the stock market, he’ll come out in absolute terms having made more money.
Is that fair? I think so. Both made the same percentage. And if it drops, he’ll lose more absolute money, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage gains are not being treated the same as investment gains. It's not like Bezos is taking home an hourly rate. Everybody at the real top is doing quite, quite well. That's why the concentration of wealth into a very few hands at the top marches on, not because of "wages".
There are the rich and then there are the really rich, and then there are the unbelievably rich. I'll happily call a family earning 500k/y on two salaries in a small town where a million dollar home is literally a mansion on a hill "rich". Because they are. They just aren't as rich as the Trumps or Bezoss of the world.
If the definition of "rich" is "independently wealthy," that family certainly doesn't meet it. They still have to work for a living.
If it means you never have to worry about where the next meal is coming from or losing the roof over your head, sure, a lot of people are "rich." And maybe this is better than 90% of humanity does, but it's still not a reasonable first world standard for being "rich" IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
10% cut? Wasn't inflation about 6.2%?
They might be referring to inflation in their specific area or in their specific budget. I don’t think you can apply average national or global inflation rates to an individual in a specific location.