The "Panama Papers" - massive leak from an offshore tax law firm

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I disagree. You're doing well making $200k, but if you live within your means, are raising a family, socking away for retirement, maxing out RESPs, etc., then you have more in common with the guy making $60k per year than the guy with $10 mil in the bank.

You're far from the point of having your money earn an income of its own making $200k. You have to get up every day and go to work still. You have to budget. You have to plan for retirement. You can't spend willy-nilly if you want to be growing your net worth.

There are lots of guys that make that kind of money and certainly many in Calgary that look rich in that every second car is a BMW or Audi these days and the houses are beautiful. But if you're spending everything you make without actually growing your net worth, then you could hardly be called rich.

You're mistaking a high income with being rich. It's your net worth that should define whether or not you're rich.

This is kinda silly too in my opinion. That $200k/year person is maxing out all their savings and purchasing a nice home and having a very good quality of life. The $60k/year person might purchase a condo in the suburbs and definitely isn't maxing out any savings contributions after bills, especially if they have dependants. That $200k/year person has a significantly higher net worth than the $60k/year person, even with dependants. I'm with Psychnet. Any way you slice it, $200k/year is statistically rich.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You can try to play it any way you want, but if you make more money yearly than 97.2% of the taxable population, you are rich, even if you don't "feel" like it.

Play it? I'm giving you the context you're clearly missing.

If you're in the top 2.8%, you can afford a comfortable life if you are financially prudent and manage to stay in that income range for a good 25 - 35 years without any major life upsets, health problems, etc. It's the top 1% that are rich, though. To a 1%er $200k is indistinguishable from a $50k salary.

A self-made $200k/year in Calgary is firmly in the middle class. I point out "self-made" because there is an important distinction between the guy that worked his way up to $200k and the guy whose parents bought him his first house, hooked him up with a sweet gig straight out of university with a high-paying job, etc.

If all of your financial bases are covered, then $200k per year for fun money is a monster income. If you are starting from scratch with your student loans, first house, car, starting from $0 in retirement savings, etc., then $200k does not go as far as you seem to think it does.

[Dan02]

The top 2.8% is middle class??? Did they teach you that math at private school?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Play it? I'm giving you the context you're clearly missing.

If you're in the top 2.8%, you can afford a comfortable life if you are financially prudent and manage to stay in that income range for a good 25 - 35 years without any major life upsets, health problems, etc. It's the top 1% that are rich, though. To a 1%er $200k is indistinguishable from a $50k salary.

A self-made $200k/year in Calgary is firmly in the middle class. I point out "self-made" because there is an important distinction between the guy that worked his way up to $200k and the guy whose parents bought him his first house, hooked him up with a sweet gig straight out of university with a high-paying job, etc.

If all of your financial bases are covered, then $200k per year for fun money is a monster income. If you are starting from scratch with your student loans, first house, car, starting from $0 in retirement savings, etc., then $200k does not go as far as you seem to think it does.

Again, just because you are spending the money you earn doesn't make you less than a top 3% earner.

"single income 200k/year = middle class".

Jesus christ. The goddamn median income in Calgary is 98k per family. How does a 200k single income even remotely approach that as "middle class"?

EDIT: What the hell am I doing. I'm taking Sliver seriously. How ironic.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Thor

OMG must find that on youtube, one of the best!

http://stuffwhatmakesmelaugh.blogspo...han-thrum.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98MNisZJyFI

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

This is kinda silly too in my opinion. That $200k/year person is maxing out all their savings and purchasing a nice home and having a very good quality of life. The $60k/year person might purchase a condo in the suburbs and definitely isn't maxing out any savings contributions after bills, especially if they have dependants. That $200k/year person has a significantly higher net worth than the $60k/year person, even with dependants. I'm with Psychnet. Any way you slice it, $200k/year is statistically rich.

It's statistically a high income, but a high income doesn't make you rich.

Growing a net worth on $200k per year takes more discipline than a lot of people have. That's why rich should be defined based on net worth. Defining rich based on net worth also takes into account familial money that can dictate a person's level of 'richness' better than their income.

There can be high-income people that are underachievers of wealth and low-income people with high net worths due to their discipline and/or the socio-economic position of their family.

[Fuzz]

^
So based on that, who should be taxed more? The guy with no discipline making 200k and a low net worth, or the guy making 60k with a high net worth and good discipline?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Again, just because you are spending the money you earn doesn't make you less than a top 3% earner.

"single income 200k/year = middle class".

Jesus christ. The goddamn median income in Calgary is 98k per family. How does a 200k single income even remotely approach that as "middle class"?

EDIT: What the hell am I doing. I'm taking Sliver seriously. How ironic.

Fine, call it upper middle class. It's not necessarily rich, though, as defined by net worth.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I disagree. You're doing well making $200k, but if you live within your means, are raising a family, socking away for retirement, maxing out RESPs, etc., then you have more in common with the guy making $60k per year than the guy with $10 mil in the bank.

Except the person making 60K can't do all that... What you're saying is "after I take care of all the stuff that you can't, we're pretty much the same." And you realize that "living within your means" is completely subject to your means, right? A person making $200K has much more means to live within that someone making $60K, even after you take care of all those things that apparently don't factor in...because?

So no, you don't have much in common with the 60Ker outside of having a home and some other luxuries. The big difference is the 60ker isn't able to be giving themselves the same safety net you are, and are watching their pay cheque hit their bank account every 2 weeks because they actually need it. You may not be making millions of dollars, but you are still firmly in the top 5% of people. It's not the middle. It's just not.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Except the person making 60K can't do all that... What you're saying is "after I take care of all the stuff that you can't, we're pretty much the same." And you realize that "living within your means" is completely subject to your means, right? A person making $200K has much more means to live within that someone making $60K, even after you take care of all those things that apparently don't factor in...because?

So no, you don't have much in common with the 60Ker outside of having a home and some other luxuries. The big difference is the 60ker isn't able to be giving themselves the same safety net you are, and are watching their pay cheque hit their bank account every 2 weeks because they actually need it. You may not be making millions of dollars, but you are still firmly in the top 5% of people. It's not the middle. It's just not.

I think I've been too wordy and it's distracted from what I want to actually say.

My point is a high income doesn't necessarily make you rich. A high net worth makes you rich.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's statistically a high income, but a high income doesn't make you rich.

Growing a net worth on $200k per year takes more discipline than a lot of people have. That's why rich should be defined based on net worth. Defining rich based on net worth also takes into account familial money that can dictate a person's level of 'richness' better than their income.

There can be high-income people that are underachievers of wealth and low-income people with high net worths due to their discipline and/or the socio-economic position of their family.

If they're underachievers of wealth, that just makes them idiots. Not poor.

Poor people also underachieve at wealth, but we just call that life.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fine, call it upper middle class. It's not necessarily rich, though, as defined by net worth.

How do say that with a straight face?

There's nothing 'middle' about it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think I've been too wordy and it's distracted from what I want to actually say.

My point is a high income doesn't necessarily make you rich. A high net worth makes you rich.

What if instead of accumulating assets, you use your wealth to enjoy the finest food, drinks and entertainments? Is that person not rich?

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by troutman

What if instead of accumulating assets, you use your wealth to enjoy the finest food, drinks and entertainments? Is that person not rich?

#Humblebrag

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by troutman

What if instead of accumulating assets, you use your wealth to enjoy the finest food, drinks and entertainments? Is that person not rich?

Not financially (based on a net-worth definition).

It's not a bad way to live. But if a person living in such a way suddenly became unable to work, they would basically be instantly poor. A high net worth provides a cushion and insurance, which is what makes somebody financially rich.

[corporatejay]

I think we need a new tier.

less than 200k, poor

more than 200k, rich

more than 1,000,000 = #### you money.


You guys act like anything over 200k and you're just a rich guy screwing over the poor folks. Mitt Romney and a dude making 200k having nothing in common. NOTHING.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How do say that with a straight face?

There's nothing 'middle' about it.

Depends on your stage in life. If you're a 35 year-old guy making $200k, you may very well be middle class as defined by net worth. You're more likely to get wealthier than the guy flipping burgers, but there's no guarantee. And if you're making $200k now, it doesn't mean you always were. And a high income today doesn't mean a high income tomorrow.

A lot of guys in Alberta making $200k two years ago aren't making anything today. Were they rich two years ago, but now they're not?

Somebody isn't rich or not based on their paycheque. It's about the net worth. OMG.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Not financially (based on a net-worth definition).

It's not a bad way to live. But if a person living in such a way suddenly became unable to work, they would basically be instantly poor. A high net worth provides a cushion and insurance, which is what makes somebody financially rich.

That's why one must never lose their love of Ramen no how much fancy food they eat.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think we need a new tier.

less than 200k, poor

more than 200k, rich

more than 1,000,000 = #### you money.


You guys act like anything over 200k and you're just a rich guy screwing over the poor folks. Mitt Romney and a dude making 200k having nothing in common. NOTHING.

They're both in the top 3% of earners. That's quite a bit in common.

[Kybosh]

I would argue that a high salary individual is statistically more likely to be a high net worth individual (using your language), so I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Could a sustained $60k/year salary individual end up at a higher net worth than the $200k/year individual? Possibly, but that $200k/year person would have to be astoundingly bad with money.