Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
I still can't believe that there are more members here in the $100K+ category than any other, and that nearly three in 10 are in that group. Also that the median income is about $74,000, which is what the numbers appear to say. Maybe there are some liars or the lower earners don't want to be speak up.
|
The poll should be broken out more:
$100,000 to $150,000
$150,000 to $200,000
$200,000 to $250,000 and so on.
Regarding the artilcle just posted, it should be mandatory reading for the proletariat.
Its also why its hard to budget in the USA in some ways . . . . . with most revenue coming from such a narrow source, any hiccup in their lives, either up or down, causes tremendous variance in collectibles while expenses, of course, could remain fairly static.
If the hiccup is to the upside for a few years, politicians love to spend the extra dollars and then are usually unable to cut those expenses when the hiccup occurs to the downside, like 2009 when the USA saw Federal tax revenues collapsing by one-third.
The proletariat living and dying by the sword of the rich.
Lastly, a guy with $1 million in the bank and a $500,000 house fully paid for, would probably be able to maintain his capital, according to modern portfolio theory, taking 4.5% to 5% from it in any given year, meaning his retirement income, assuming no external pension besides CPP, might be something like $60,000.
So, there's a fairly common example of a normal Joe, retired millionaire who is hardly elite. That's something the article doesn't discuss.
The answer should be to look for ways to make it more predictable in good times and tough times and to match expenses towards that predictability.
Then maybe our lives would be blessedly less exciting than they've been the last few years.
Cowperson