Are the Majority of Americans Closet Socialists?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It was a strong showing. We'll just have to see if it makes a difference in the swing state polls.

Obama looked ... passive. Like he was expecting the same doddering old McCain he faced last time. I was really surprised he looked so off his game.

I couldn't believe that the 47% comment wasn't raised once by Obama. That dagger was gift-wrapped by Romney and Obama didn't even pick it up.

Agreed. The weak debate performance, plus the inscrutable mishandling of the Libya attack are really not helping Obama out. You gotta wonder what's going on.

Michael Lewis has an interesting article out in Vanity Fair from about 6 months spent he spent with the president. The presidency doesn't seem to suit his personality that well. Maybe he's just getting tired of it?

Also, I dunno that any of Mitt's math worked out, but he made some strong commitments to the middle class last night. If he kept 1/2 of those promises, maybe he wouldn't be such a bad president.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Obviously Romney was prepared to discuss the 47% comment and make his point more clearly. Obama didn't want to get schooled on that topic like he did on every last item they discussed in the debate.

Heh, I don't know about that :) I don't think it was fear that kept Obama off that topic but some odd passive defensive complacency.

Obama is smart and he is self aware - he knows he got his ass handed to him in the first debate, and he'll be better in the next one. He's run a very disciplined campaign so far, but it's been a 'prevent defense' kind of campaign. He is ahead, so run out the clock, don't make major errors, let your opponent screw up. Romney didn't play along last night, but Obama still has plenty of time to change tactics. I think we'll see a very very different Obama in the next debate, and probably a much more aggressive attacking campaign until then.

You can bet that part of that will be harping on Romney's supposed contempt for 47% of Americans who are poor.

And a cynic might speculate that another part of that will involve some well-timed bombing of Libya to avenge our ambassador's murder.
 
I think we'll see a very very different Obama in the next debate, and probably a much more aggressive attacking campaign until then.

Different Obama for sure, is he going to win over Romeny is the question. Let the audience ask him again why is he not prepared for terrorist attack in the Middle East on 9/11? It can get ugly for the President again. And I can't wait to see Biden being embarrased next week.

You can bet that part of that will be harping on Romney's supposed contempt for 47% of Americans who are poor.

I think the window for using this statement to attack Romney is now close.

And a cynic might speculate that another part of that will involve some well-timed bombing of Libya to avenge our ambassador's murder.

No. The well-timed bomb is going to be the job report tomorrow!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Different Obama for sure, is he going to win over Romeny is the question. Let the audience ask him again why is he not prepared for terrorist attack in the Middle East on 9/11? It can get ugly for the President again. And I can't wait to see Biden being embarrased next week.

If I was a betting man, I'd still have my money on Obama. The electoral map is just too unfriendly to Romney. Obama has a LOT of ways to win 270 electoral votes while still losing the popular vote by as much as a couple %.

Romney has very narrow electoral paths to victory. Ohio is key.


I think the window for using this statement to attack Romney is now close.

I think it's still one of Obama's biggest clubs and I think he's going to use it. It makes for some awfully compelling sound bites.

I'll be honest, I thought this election was OVER when that video was released. I thought it was a Sarah Palin nomination moment. I'm glad to be even a little bit wrong there.


No. The well-timed bomb is going to be the job report tomorrow!

We'll see. While part of me would welcome some corroboration of my dim view of the economy and its prospects, in part because it would aid Romney's campaign, there's something a bit morbid and disturbing about hoping for bad news for the sake of political points.

I think the expected figure is somewhere around +150K which would be better than the revised August #. So my bet is that there will be ample room for both candidates to declare that the report supports their respective narratives.
 
Will Romney ever have a good solid 1 week stretch without some momentum killer? Unemployment at 7.8%? The gods must hate Mitt.
 
Will Romney ever have a good solid 1 week stretch without some momentum killer? Unemployment at 7.8%? The gods must hate Mitt.

When you actually read the latest job report, most of these jobs are part-time. I think the report has many flaws. Last month it went down because a lot of people gave up on finding jobs. Unfortunately, for the lay population, a slightly lower % is most likely enough to convince them the economy is improving.

I don't think high unemployment rate could significantly boost Romney based on the fact that there are few undecided voters out there. But, Obama dodge a bomb. One way or the other, Romney needs to win all the debates to have a chance.
 
Last edited:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...al-security-tweak-might-mean-for-workers?lite

I expect this discussion in the next debate. I know the responses already:

Obama: Raise taxes and cap benefits on the "wealthy" (that term wealthy will be a moving target)
Romney: No new taxes so the retirement age for full benefits gets raised

I hope to god there's enough bipartisan common sense to raise the retirement age to 70 for full benefits and maybe boost the point at which taxes are taken out by $50K or so. Maybe we wouldn't even have to do the second part.
 
Damn it looks like Romney may actually have a chance. You guys see today's exit poll numbers? I know those things have little predictive value but it's nice to think that Obama is not going to win by a landslide.

On a related note, I was explaining to a few fellow med students at lunch how Obama's tax plan possibly means raising income tax on people who make > or = $250K from 35% to 39.5% and I got the following responses:

1) you plan on making that much? How!?
2) We're in a mess and sacrifices have to be made. Greed is what got us into this mess.
3) I'm happy with anything over $150K, I don't really care.

At which point I just smoothly changed the subject cause I wanted to b**ch slap them all.
 
lol. I notice that I can change young college kids' minds by taking macro concepts down to micro concepts that'll hit closer to home.

BTW: I read the same poll - WHAT!!! WHAT!!!! - I'm stoked. You KNOW it's only going to get better after the VP debate.:thumbup:


Damn it looks like Romney may actually have a chance. You guys see today's exit poll numbers? I know those things have little predictive value but it's nice to think that Obama is not going to win by a landslide.

On a related note, I was explaining to a few fellow med students at lunch how Obama's tax plan possibly means raising income tax on people who make > or = $250K from 35% to 39.5% and I got the following responses:

1) you plan on making that much? How!?
2) We're in a mess and sacrifices have to be made. Greed is what got us into this mess.
3) I'm happy with anything over $150K, I don't really care.

At which point I just smoothly changed the subject cause I wanted to b**ch slap them all.
 
Damn it looks like Romney may actually have a chance. You guys see today's exit poll numbers? I know those things have little predictive value but it's nice to think that Obama is not going to win by a landslide.

On a related note, I was explaining to a few fellow med students at lunch how Obama's tax plan possibly means raising income tax on people who make > or = $250K from 35% to 39.5% and I got the following responses:

1) you plan on making that much? How!?
2) We're in a mess and sacrifices have to be made. Greed is what got us into this mess.
3) I'm happy with anything over $150K, I don't really care.

At which point I just smoothly changed the subject cause I wanted to b**ch slap them all.

Yeah, it's super frustrating to have conversations with actual people who disagree with you...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Yeah, it's super frustrating to have conversations with actual people who disagree with you...

Oh c'mon now.

1. Unless you're a pediatrician, if you're an MD and have a spouse that works at you then you're likely to break 250k

2. Wanting to be paid for all this schooling/time isn't greed

3. Many medical students have never had career type jobs, so their view of money is skewed by inexperience.
 
Med students have no idea that $250K (declared income and fully taxed) means you are solid middle class in NYC, Chicago, LA, SanFran, etc.

Wait until you pay disability insurance, mortgage, car payment, student loans, etc. on your after tax income. You won't feel rich at all. You will have enough money to live and save some but "rich" isn't likely on that amount of money.
 
By most measures, a $250,000 household income is substantial. It is six times the national average, and just 2.9% of couples earn that much or more. "For the average person in this country, a $250,000 household income is an unattainably high annual sum -- they'll never see it," says Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C.


Taxing the rich

But just how flush is a family of four with a $250,000 income? Are they really "rich"? To find the answer, The Fiscal Times asked BDO USA, a national tax accounting firm, to compute the total state, local and federal tax burden of a hypothetical two-career couple with two kids, earning $250,000. To factor in varying state and local taxes, as well as drastically different costs of living, BDO placed the couple in eight different locales around the country with top-notch public schools, using national data on spending.

The analysis assumes that this hypothetical couple -- let's call them Mr. and Mrs. Jones -- both have professional positions at their companies. They take advantage of all tax benefits available to them, such as pretax contributions to 401k plans and flexible spending accounts for medical care, child care and transportation. They have no credit card debt, but Mr. Jones racked up $40,208 in student loan debt in undergraduate and graduate school, and Mrs. Jones borrowed $22,650 to get her undergraduate degree (both amounts are equal to the national averages for their levels of education). They also have a car loan on one of two cars, and a mortgage for 80% of the value of a typical home in their communities for a family of four, which includes one toddler and one school-age child.

MSN Money slide show

Meet the Joneses: A look at how they fared in 8 US cities

The bottom line: It's not exactly Easy Street for our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they live in high-tax areas on either coast. Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, they end up in the red -- after taxes, saving for retirement and their children's education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living -- in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis. The worst: Huntington, N.Y., and Glendale, Calif., followed by Washington, D.C., Bethesda, Md., Alexandria, Va., Naperville, Ill., and Pinecrest, Fla. In Plano, Texas, the couple's balance sheet would end up positive, but only by $4,963.

Taxes take a hefty toll. Everything from property taxes and the alternative minimum tax to the taxes added to cell phone bills and the cost of gasoline, when combined, takes a massive bite out of earnings -- in some cases even more than the federal income tax. And it's not likely to get better soon. States and municipalities have been steadily raising income tax rates to help close gaping holes in their budgets. Property taxes are also increasing, even though real estate values have cratered. And sales taxes are hitting record levels, in some areas nearing 10%. Gas taxes, alcohol taxes and hidden surcharges on everything from airline flights and ferry rides to vehicle registrations, rental cars and even sodas have also been stealthily rising.



3 dumb things to do with your tax refund
FEATUREDTOP PICKS

3 dumb things to do with your tax refund
2/23/11 1:35

Convert this year's refund into next year's tax credit
2/25/11 1:20
1 of 3
On top of that, additional tax increases for couples with salaries of $250,000 or more (and single people earning $200,000 or more) are scheduled to go into effect in 2013 under the health care bill passed a year ago. Plus, the Democrats, who supported legislation to raise income tax rates for higher earners last year, will probably push for the same measure when the Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012.

Thinking about tomorrow
Being in the red on a $250,000 annual salary may still seem surprising. But taking responsibility for their retirement and their children's future is costly. The Joneses are maximizing contributions to two 401k's and to all flexible spending accounts available to them, and they are squirreling away $8,000 a year for their kids' college educations. And their spending is conservative, based on national averages for professional couples with two children. Not included are those hefty run-of-the-mill payouts for charitable deductions, life insurance premiums, disability insurance, legal fees -- or monthly sessions at the hair colorist, or membership at a gym.

As educated professionals, the Joneses buy books, newspapers and magazines; they own computers and pay for Internet access. But they don't take lavish vacations, don't belong to a country club, don't play golf, don't drive luxury cars, don't have a swimming pool, don't buy designer clothes, don't own or rent a second home and don't send their kids to private schools. They don't even shop at high-end grocery markets. (They spend what the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines as a "moderate" amount on food for the average family of four.) In short, they're not "wealthy," even if they're in the top 5% of earners.

In reality, to make ends meet, this squeezed couple would have to cut back on discretionary expenses -- take a pass on a new suit, skip an annual vacation and drop some of their children's activities. Unfortunately, the family would also probably have to save less, at the ultimate expense of their retirement or their kids' educations.
 
State income taxes, taken alone, are just $10,557. But factor in the gas tax ($2,679), property tax ($15,222), phone service taxes and surcharges ($350), and sales tax ($2,258), and the picture looks far different. Their total tax bill, including the AMT and payroll taxes: $78,276.

"When most people think about taxes, they think first about federal income taxes, then maybe about sales taxes, but there are a lot of taxes out there," says Mark Robyn, an economist with the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group in Washington, D.C. "It's eye-opening to step back and take a look at the whole picture."

Location is critical
Moving to a state with no income taxes or low taxes in general would help the Joneses' bottom line. In Pinecrest, Fla., a suburb of Miami, they would owe zero state income tax, and pay an annual $10,976 in property taxes, $1,833 in sales taxes and $350 in phone service taxes, for a total state and local tax burden of $13,476. Because they would have no deduction for state and local taxes on their federal tax return, they would have to pay Uncle Sam more than they did in Huntington: $31,768. Still, the total tax burden would be significantly less: $61,621, versus $78,276 in Huntington and $71,683 in Glendale, a suburb of Los Angeles.

But for most people, moving to a low-tax state in midcareer is difficult, if not impossible. People are generally bound to their high-tax states by their jobs. And often it's tough to find high salaries in low-tax states like Florida.

How far the 'big bucks' really go
The $250,000 threshold was first mentioned in a campaign speech by Barack Obama when he was running for president in 2008. "It's an historical accident," Williams says of the number's importance. "I don't think there was any thought given to why $250,000 -- it became a mantra." Whether or not $250,000 represents affluence "depends a great deal upon where you live," he says.


Consider, for example, the tab for the same assortment of ground beef, tuna, milk, eggs, margarine, potatoes, bananas, bread, orange juice, coffee, sugar and cereal. In Twin Falls, Idaho, the cost would be $23.41. In New York City, you would have to shell out 72% more, $40.29, according to The Council for Community and Economic Research. That higher percentage carries across all expenditures, from child care to haircuts.

Of course, housing costs are among the biggest variables. In Glendale, the Joneses can live reasonably well -- but not extravagantly -- in a three- or four-bedroom home valued around $750,000. In Twin Falls, they would need to spend only about half as much for an equivalent home.

After covering taxes and only essential expenses for housing, groceries, child care, clothing, transportation and their dog, the Joneses would still be in the red by $1,787 in Huntington. In Plano, they would have $27,556 to spare. Factor in common additional expenses for a working couple with two children -- music lessons, day camp costs and after-school sports, entertainment, cleaning services, gifts and an annual weeklong vacation -- and the Joneses get deep in the red in Huntington, to the tune of $23,178. In Plano, the best-case scenario, they would still have money to spare, but just $4,963.

MSN Money slide show

Meet the Joneses: A look at how they fared in 8 US cities

Some of the expenses incurred by couples like the Joneses may seem lavish -- such as $5,000 on a housecleaner, a $1,200 annual tab for dry cleaning and $4,000 on kids' activities. But when both parents are working, it is impossible for them to maintain the home, care for the children and dress for their professional jobs without a big outlay.

And costs assumed by the Joneses could be significantly higher if their circumstances changed. For example, if they worked for themselves, they would have to foot the bill for all their medical insurance premiums, which average $14,043. As it is, they pay 30% of the premiums, and their employers pay the rest.

The bottom line: For folks like the Joneses -- who live in high-tax, high-cost areas, who save for retirement and college, who pay for child care to enable them to earn two incomes and who pay higher prices for housing in top school districts -- $250,000 does not a rich family make.

This article was reported by Karen Hube for The Fiscal Times.
 
When you have all your debt paid off, no mortgage, no expenses for kids (college paid,etc) and saved a few million dollars in your E Trade account then and only then will $250K be more than ample for all your needs including lavish vacations. It isn't what you earn but what you keep that matters

I understand what the US dollar really buys for a family of four. This is why I support taxes for police, firefighters, teachers,etc. I truly know how difficult it is for them to live middle class on their salaries.
We all need skin in the game but those earning less than $100,000 pay enough in taxes. What we need is smaller, leaner govt focused on its constitutional functions only.
 
Oh c'mon now.

1. Unless you're a pediatrician, if you're an MD and have a spouse that works at you then you're likely to break 250k

2. Wanting to be paid for all this schooling/time isn't greed

3. Many medical students have never had career type jobs, so their view of money is skewed by inexperience.

I'm not judging the OP of that post for wanting to make $250K+ or for being annoyed at being taxed at 35% vs. 39.5%. I was more giving him(?) a poke for being so angry that he wanted to bitch slap his fellow students. Their points of view are just as valid, and I laud the students who are going to be happy earning $150K/yr. I bet they'll never feel underpaid if they keep that attitude.

I have no issues with doctors wanting to earn large paychecks. I have issues when doctors say they deserve to earn large paychecks. Markets don't do "deserve." Some of the anesthesiologists always come back and say, "Medicare isn't a market, it's a monopoly." to me, but I somehow doubt they're considering ditching their Medicare and private insurance contracts for the open market.

Finally, re: Blade's epic postings, I have little sympathy for the family earning $250K and complaining they can barely make it. People choose to live in NYC, DC, SF, etc. If you're not getting enough bang for your buck, move. If you earn that much money, the doors are open for you to take your skills elsewhere. A family earning $250K is rich. Deal with it.
 
I'm not judging the OP of that post for wanting to make $250K+ or for being annoyed at being taxed at 35% vs. 39.5%. I was more giving him(?) a poke for being so angry that he wanted to bitch slap his fellow students. Their points of view are just as valid, and I laud the students who are going to be happy earning $150K/yr. I bet they'll never feel underpaid if they keep that attitude.

I have no issues with doctors wanting to earn large paychecks. I have issues when doctors say they deserve to earn large paychecks. Markets don't do "deserve." Some of the anesthesiologists always come back and say, "Medicare isn't a market, it's a monopoly." to me, but I somehow doubt they're considering ditching their Medicare and private insurance contracts for the open market.

Finally, re: Blade's epic postings, I have little sympathy for the family earning $250K and complaining they can barely make it. People choose to live in NYC, DC, SF, etc. If you're not getting enough bang for your buck, move. If you earn that much money, the doors are open for you to take your skills elsewhere. A family earning $250K is rich. Deal with it.

When I was a Medical Student I thought anyone earning over $200K was rich. I was wrong then just as you are wrong now. Deal with it.
 
When I was a Medical Student I thought anyone earning over $200K was rich. I was wrong then just as you are wrong now. Deal with it.

Yeeees! Sit down, son because you have just been schooled.
 
I'm not judging the OP of that post for wanting to make $250K+ or for being annoyed at being taxed at 35% vs. 39.5%. I was more giving him(?) a poke for being so angry that he wanted to bitch slap his fellow students. Their points of view are just as valid, and I laud the students who are going to be happy earning $150K/yr. I bet they'll never feel underpaid if they keep that attitude.

I have no issues with doctors wanting to earn large paychecks. I have issues when doctors say they deserve to earn large paychecks. Markets don't do "deserve." Some of the anesthesiologists always come back and say, "Medicare isn't a market, it's a monopoly." to me, but I somehow doubt they're considering ditching their Medicare and private insurance contracts for the open market.

Finally, re: Blade's epic postings, I have little sympathy for the family earning $250K and complaining they can barely make it. People choose to live in NYC, DC, SF, etc. If you're not getting enough bang for your buck, move. If you earn that much money, the doors are open for you to take your skills elsewhere. A family earning $250K is rich. Deal with it.

You'll understand this in a few years, but if you don't want to smack a medical student at least once a week then you're not paying attention :D

I could agree that 250k is a lot of money, but I wouldn't call it rich (especially with MD school loans). Many of my classmate are looking into jobs for next year (last year in residency here), and comparing salaries with loan burden. I'll break this down from a resident I talked to yesterday.

Let's assume 250k/year (the following expenses are from a resident colleague of mine). Even in low tax SC, expect to lose 50% of that by the time all your taxes are done with - so down to 125k or ~10.5k/month. Subtract 3.5k for med school loans - 7k. Let's assume 1k/month on a mortage as that's about standard around these parts. 6k/month. Son at state university - ~2k/month. Down to 4k. Nanny for 2year old - 1k/month. 3k. Let's say food/gas/car payment/power/water all come out to about 1k/month (SC is cheap). Down to 2k/month.

Not too shabby, but I wouldn't call that rich.
 
I don't see how food, gas, car payment,etc comes to only $1,000 a month. That seems low
What about auto insurance? Home insurance? Disability insurance? Life insurance?
Wife's car? Your car? Cable bill? Phone and cell bill?

Also $1,000 a month mortgage is about a $160,000 house. That's not exactly rich or even upper middle class. Usual mortgage payment is closer to $2K per month.

You will find that at the end of the month almost all of it is gone. Every red cent.
 
I don't see how food, gas, car payment,etc comes to only $1,000 a month. That seems low
What about auto insurance? Home insurance? Disability insurance? Life insurance?
Wife's car? Your car? Cable bill? Phone and cell bill?

Also $1,000 a month mortgage is about a $160,000 house. That's not exactly rich or even upper middle class. Usual mortgage payment is closer to $2K per month.

You will find that at the end of the month almost all of it is gone. Every red cent.
As someone who majored in business but just finished a post-bac program and is applying to med school now for next fall, this worries me. If Obama's ideas become law for four more years I may find myself in financial trouble ten years from now. I hope my decision to choose medicine will be worth it.
 
Last edited:
As someone who majored in business but just finished a post-bac program and is applying to med school now for next fall, this worries me. If Obama's ideas become law for four more years I may find myself in financial trouble ten years from now. I hope my decision to choose medicine will be worth it.

So do I. I hope you have a successful and rewarding career. I certainly can't complain about compensation as this field has made me well-off and I still have another decade or more to work (Lord willing).

I want you to be realistic about ObamaCare followed by a single payer system. Obamacare leads the USA down an even more unsustainable road of health care costs which forces politicians into adding a Medicare option into the exchanges.

Single payer will save money because care is rationed and reimbursements are cut. Basic health care is free and abundant (think NP not MD) but specialized services are restricted. That's how a govt run health care system rolls.
 
The single payer system in Canada is really one I am proud of and I hope the US can go that way. It's highly cost efficient and takes away worries about pre-existing conditions, employers having to pay their employee's insurance etc.

For the record, Obamacare is NOT what Canada has, nor would I ever want that system. Elective procedures do take longer here, but we also spend much less of our GDP on health care compared to the US. If we were willing to spend half as much as the US on our health care then I would imagine the wait time would drop significantly.

My own experience with the system has been excellent. There are literally 12 medical clinics within a 10 minute drive of my house. I saw a family doc yesterday and the wait time was 5 minutes. I was in an ER a few months ago in Toronto and waited a total of 20 minutes to be seen (through the fast track side). When i was studying in the US I remember trying to see a doctor (paying out of pocket) and drove around for 3 hours only to discover there were no clinics that had room to take me on or see me for a minor issue (getting refill of an albuterol MDI). Extremely frustrating.

As for salaries, I've been talking to a lot of people and it seems salaries are pretty well equal in specialties and higher in primary care fields. Actual income tax rates are not much higher, especially if you incorporate and have a good accountant. Or move to Alberta. Costs of living are higher though and you will pay more in sales taxes and on things like alcohol and tobacco etc.

I hope that clears up some confusion since I saw a lot of information being thrown around which wasn't accurate.
 
You'll understand this in a few years, but if you don't want to smack a medical student at least once a week then you're not paying attention :D

I could agree that 250k is a lot of money, but I wouldn't call it rich (especially with MD school loans). Many of my classmate are looking into jobs for next year (last year in residency here), and comparing salaries with loan burden. I'll break this down from a resident I talked to yesterday.

Let's assume 250k/year (the following expenses are from a resident colleague of mine). Even in low tax SC, expect to lose 50% of that by the time all your taxes are done with - so down to 125k or ~10.5k/month. Subtract 3.5k for med school loans - 7k. Let's assume 1k/month on a mortage as that's about standard around these parts. 6k/month. Son at state university - ~2k/month. Down to 4k. Nanny for 2year old - 1k/month. 3k. Let's say food/gas/car payment/power/water all come out to about 1k/month (SC is cheap). Down to 2k/month.

Not too shabby, but I wouldn't call that rich.

In other words, after paying all your expenses, and your son's college tuition out of pocket, you're down to 24K per year to spend however you want?

I appreciate that life is expensive. I worked for a living before med school, and I know taxes can be a bitch. Car repairs and rent suck. But if you're earning more than 97% of people in America, one of the richest countries on earth, you're rich. Objectively, looking at actual numbers, you are rich.
 
2k a month for savings is what you should be saying; stashing away 24k a year is pathetic. My brother puts away more than this as an engineer making under 150k.
 
I don't see how food, gas, car payment,etc comes to only $1,000 a month. That seems low
What about auto insurance? Home insurance? Disability insurance? Life insurance?
Wife's car? Your car? Cable bill? Phone and cell bill?

Also $1,000 a month mortgage is about a $160,000 house. That's not exactly rich or even upper middle class. Usual mortgage payment is closer to $2K per month.

You will find that at the end of the month almost all of it is gone. Every red cent.

I was rounding down on most everything for the sake of argument, but you did include much that I forgot.

In other words, after paying all your expenses, and your son's college tuition out of pocket, you're down to 24K per year to spend however you want?

I appreciate that life is expensive. I worked for a living before med school, and I know taxes can be a bitch. Car repairs and rent suck. But if you're earning more than 97% of people in America, one of the richest countries on earth, you're rich. Objectively, looking at actual numbers, you are rich.

See Blade's list of stuff I forgot.
 
2k a month for savings is what you should be saying; stashing away 24k a year is pathetic. My brother puts away more than this as an engineer making under 150k.

Other than the student loans (which most physicians pay off within 10 years of graduating med school), how are physician expenses any different than your brother's? If he was paying $2k/month for college tuition and $1K/month on a nanny, would he really be putting away that amount of savings?
 
Let's assume 250k/year (the following expenses are from a resident colleague of mine). Even in low tax SC, expect to lose 50% of that by the time all your taxes are done with

Hold it ... any married with kids person earning $250K/year who's paying an effective tax rate of 50% is filing their 1040 while drunk or high.


Son at state university - ~2k/month. Down to 4k. Nanny for 2year old - 1k/month.

Three things here tripped my WTF meter.

1) Son at state univ? Maybe in the 18 years leading up to that point, money could've been saved ... or maybe the son could pay for his own education via loans, work, ROTC, whatever.

2) 18 year old and 2 year old? Interesting family planning there; perhaps one forfeits some poverty credibility when one chooses to be a parent of a child for 35 consecutive years.

3) Nanny? Seriously? Nannies are now listed alongside housing, food, and transportation?


Paying for your kid's college tuition, having multiple kids over multiple decades, and paying someone to live with you to do laundry and watch your kids may be wonderful things if that's what you want out of life, but they're NOT valid reasons to gripe that $36,000/year is somehow evaporating out of your control and making it hard for you to get ahead.


I'd also posit that the resident colleague with the 18-year-old kid in college probably has a bigger wealth-accumulating problem than his meager $250K projected salary and odd budget creates: he's OLD. Unless he had that kid when he was 12, he's probably pushing 40 right now and has a lot fewer working years than the usual straight-through college-medschool-residency person.

Again I don't mean to imply his choices were bad or irresponsible, just that he has chosen to spend some money on things that most families don't.


GoodmanBrown said:
But if you're earning more than 97% of people in America, one of the richest countries on earth, you're rich. Objectively, looking at actual numbers, you are rich.

I really object to the word "rich" ... it's emotionally charged and not well defined. It's not a word that's useful for these discussions simply because nobody agrees on what it means.

In my view, "rich" people don't earn their money at jobs or professions. They collect it from passive investments. Anyone who has to get up in the morning and go to work (or else face foreclosure, homelessness, hunger, etc) is not rich. Call them something else, maybe "middle class" if you have to pick a nebulous emotional label. :)


Your definition of rich appears to be based on an arbitrary %ile - 97. In that case, the bottom 3% of Americans are also rich, relative to the other 97% of the people in the world. 3 billion people are living on something like $3 per day.

Oddly enough, however, we don't see a lot of average, well-meaning, hardworking American earning $30,000/year looking for ways to give >50% of their income to the 97% of humans living on a few dollars per day in India or Africa.

Maybe we should just quit this silly game of tossing around percentiles like they imply any kind of obligation or entitlement from one % to another.
 
Hold it ... any married with kids person earning $250K/year who's paying an effective tax rate of 50% is filing their 1040 while drunk or high.




Three things here tripped my WTF meter.

1) Son at state univ? Maybe in the 18 years leading up to that point, money could've been saved ... or maybe the son could pay for his own education via loans, work, ROTC, whatever.

2) 18 year old and 2 year old? Interesting family planning there; perhaps one forfeits some poverty credibility when one chooses to be a parent of a child for 35 consecutive years.

3) Nanny? Seriously? Nannies are now listed alongside housing, food, and transportation?


Paying for your kid's college tuition, having multiple kids over multiple decades, and paying someone to live with you to do laundry and watch your kids may be wonderful things if that's what you want out of life, but they're NOT valid reasons to gripe that $36,000/year is somehow evaporating out of your control and making it hard for you to get ahead.


I'd also posit that the resident colleague with the 18-year-old kid in college probably has a bigger wealth-accumulating problem than his meager $250K projected salary and odd budget creates: he's OLD. Unless he had that kid when he was 12, he's probably pushing 40 right now and has a lot fewer working years than the usual straight-through college-medschool-residency person.

Again I don't mean to imply his choices were bad or irresponsible, just that he has chosen to spend some money on things that most families don't.




I really object to the word "rich" ... it's emotionally charged and not well defined. It's not a word that's useful for these discussions simply because nobody agrees on what it means.

In my view, "rich" people don't earn their money at jobs or professions. They collect it from passive investments. Anyone who has to get up in the morning and go to work (or else face foreclosure, homelessness, hunger, etc) is not rich. Call them something else, maybe "middle class" if you have to pick a nebulous emotional label. :)


Your definition of rich appears to be based on an arbitrary %ile - 97. In that case, the bottom 3% of Americans are also rich, relative to the other 97% of the people in the world. 3 billion people are living on something like $3 per day.

Oddly enough, however, we don't see a lot of average, well-meaning, hardworking American earning $30,000/year looking for ways to give >50% of their income to the 97% of humans living on a few dollars per day in India or Africa.

Maybe we should just quit this silly game of tossing around percentiles like they imply any kind of obligation or entitlement from one % to another.

That proves the lie. It isn't about forcing the rich to help the poor. It is about politicians using your money to buy votes. Poor people abroad, who are in all likelihood more deserving of charity than poor people here, can't vote for president or congress.
 
Let's assume 250k/year (the following expenses are from a resident colleague of mine). Even in low tax SC, expect to lose 50% of that by the time all your taxes are done with - so down to 125k or ~10.5k/month. Subtract 3.5k for med school loans - 7k. Let's assume 1k/month on a mortage as that's about standard around these parts. 6k/month. Son at state university - ~2k/month. Down to 4k. Nanny for 2year old - 1k/month. 3k. Let's say food/gas/car payment/power/water all come out to about 1k/month (SC is cheap). Down to 2k/month.

Not too shabby, but I wouldn't call that rich.

All right, my last critique of this budget will be to inject a dose of verifiable, fact-based reality.

$250K/year
- $17K (about 7%) for SC state taxes
- $52K for federal taxes (married filing jointly, standard deduction, 2 kids)

Left with $181K after taxes. (In other words, about 28% overall tax rate, not 50%.)


$3.5K/month student loans suggests roughly $300K in principal @ 6.8% with a 10 year payoff, if I'm doing the math right. $300K in educational debt isn't average.



Also - in reviewing this budget a 3rd time, I'm struck by something very strange. Dad the anesthesiologist is making payments on $300,000 in his own student loan debt, but his college-age kid can't pay for school with loans and remains a burden to dad? Wacky.
 
Also - in reviewing this budget a 3rd time, I'm struck by something very strange. Dad the anesthesiologist is making payments on $300,000 in his own student loan debt, but his college-age kid can't pay for school with loans and remains a burden to dad? Wacky.

I don't understand the concept of paying for your kids' higher education. Incentivise their choice of major by making it cost them every penny!
 
All right, my last critique of this budget will be to inject a dose of verifiable, fact-based reality.

$250K/year
- $17K (about 7%) for SC state taxes
- $52K for federal taxes (married filing jointly, standard deduction, 2 kids)

Left with $181K after taxes. (In other words, about 28% overall tax rate, not 50%.)


$3.5K/month student loans suggests roughly $300K in principal @ 6.8% with a 10 year payoff, if I'm doing the math right. $300K in educational debt isn't average.



Also - in reviewing this budget a 3rd time, I'm struck by something very strange. Dad the anesthesiologist is making payments on $300,000 in his own student loan debt, but his college-age kid can't pay for school with loans and remains a burden to dad? Wacky.

Let me start this by saying that I think 250k is plenty of money, my whole argument was that someone making that much isn't "rich". That was all.

All of my FM attendings (I'm not anesthesia, I just wander over here because y'all have more interesting topics) report paying ~50% of their income in all taxes when everything is said and done - income, property, FICA, payroll, and so forth. When I get home, I'll look at my most recent tax return and see what it says (though I'm only a resident, so my tax burden was fairly low).

A few other points...

Perhaps its semantics, but to me a nanny is someone who takes care of your child when you leave for work and leaves when you get home - I don't know what this "cooking your meals" stuff is about. Perhaps I should have said babysitter to avoid this confusion. I would still include child care with food/gas/etc as this is something that must happen.

As for the rest of your 2 posts, I don't actually diagree on any points - again, just using this to say that 250k isn't "rich".
 
just using this to say that 250k isn't "rich".

I agree.

I can also see how someone making $25K would have little patience with our arguments.


I don't understand the concept of paying for your kids' higher education. Incentivise their choice of major by making it cost them every penny!

:)

I'll put my 3 kids through college, because I can, and because I want them to have as big an advantage over their competition as possible.

If they choose poorly when it comes to major ... well, life's hard enough for someone who gets a degree in Comparative Pre-vs-Post-Pizarro Incan Poetry without having a bunch of student loan debt to handle on a Starbucks paycheck. I'd still pay for it, though I'd probably mock my kid mercilessly with each check.
 
Top