That gem that most millionaires have declared bankruptcy is just wrong. Sounds like someone needs to go back to the basics and read Millionaire Next Door.
Well I figured I'd chime in with how we sit in this. Six figures and savings vs stuff seems to be the key. It's not that 6F goes less far, but that 6F with savings isn't going to go nearly as far for "stuff". The savings is the key. You're making the choice of stuff now vs savings. If you want to live like the perceived 6F income, AND have savings, you need to bump up the income another 30-50K a year to compensate for the fact you're saving (which is very much not part of the 6F perceived lifestyle). I think you're making the better choice to limit consumption.
I live in an area a smidge more expensive than Ann Arbor (according to some on-line calculator), the suburbs of Atlanta, GA, and my wife is a homeschooler with some PT income and we're pretty close to paycheck to paycheck at around 70K a year... with 3 kids. We also started very young as parents (19 and 21), and started off in debt. We've gotten out of debt, and back into it. We live in a decent house, but not a huge one. We drive used mini-vans, I carpool to work, I take left-overs for lunch, and type this on my 4 year-old iBook (our most advanced computer... bought used).
We could hit the six-figures if my wife worked, but we'd lose the benefits of her (a certified teacher) teaching our kids (one of which is too far advanced to stick in public school, and one of which has some special needs), and all that goes with her being at home most days of the week (cleaning, cooking, childcare, etc).
The thing I've tried to remember in regards to debt and finances is that while we're not rolling in it, we're not too bad off in the net worth department and for US, the time with our kids while they're still young is more important than getting the head-start on our savings. THAT SAID, I'd love to save more, and we're constantly working to be able to save more, I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. In 10 years we could have an extra 250K in the bank, or a nicer house and cars, or a decade of all the extra-memories shared with our kids from one of us being home with them all the time. I'll take the memories every time.
I chuckled when I read the last comment. Mark, you're exactly right, but your final phrase reminds me to be aware of one of my foibles. Someone (I forget who) wrote: "beware of anything you find youself describing as 'perfectly good.'" If you have hoarding tendencies that phrase can lead you to a cellar/attic/garage full of unnecessary "stuff."
Freecycle (I second Mark's plug) is not only a great resource for locating needed items, it can be a priceless outlet for some of that "perfectly good" stuff you're holding on to for no reason, and that somebody else might actually need.
Finally, working back--sharing, borrowing. This is a truly radical idea for most Americans today. Everyone has (or wants) a full tool set, major appliances, mowers, snowblowers...and a lot of it is used only occasionally because neighbors don't feel comfortable sharing the purchase and use of, well--anything! This goes to the root of consumer culture, disconnected communities, and a good thing like individualism taken WAY too literally.
Thanks for this post, and the forum for discussing.
My apartment is the size of a shoebox. And anytime I "need" to buy something, I take a look around and realize I can't fit anything else in! That won't work for anybody who lives in a comfortably-sized place, but it's stopped me from buying all kinds of crap that I'd only end up tripping over.
Brings along all the pros & cons of interpersonal relationships but you could BORROW an item of a neighbour, relative and/or colleague. Puts the unused item to good use and saves on landfill.
As a bloke who has walked into a home improvement store and got all excited about the power tools section when all I need was to put up a set of shelves. Turns out my brother/father both had required tools in shed.
Sorry to nitpick, but the phrase in the title should be "making due" rather than "making do." Why is that more correct? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Seems like an odd use of the word due. But, I thought I'd let you know.
Yeah, there's a known issue with the comment counts. The admins know that it happens on an occasional post, but haven't been able to figure out what's going on.
Making non-financial investments (such as insulating your house, buying good tools, or stocking up when there are good sales on grocery items) is often a more profitable choice than investing in stocks or bonds.
An excellent and well-worded factual comment. If you're not already a Republican, you should be! We're not rich by any means, but nor do I consider us poor, just tight after a whole lot of difficulties. I think it might be a good idea, if we're going to have any "entitlements," to work them like they work social security/disability. You have to have paid so much into the system before you can collect, unless your circumstances are extreme (i.e., a stay-at-home disabled mom whose husband is killed), and even they ought to be temporary. I give and help others when I can, and I believe that's the best way to do it, not having the government give hand-outs. But it is perfectly understandable that people are frustrated because the government takes their hard-earned money and gives it to someone who is too lazy to work. That's called re-distribution of wealth, and it's socialistic/communistic and WRONG.
In this case, you have an excellent point. I'm a stay-at-home mother of 6, and would feel exactly the same way if I were in your situation. I wonder if a determination will be made based on when you became single again. I would definitely check with a tax professional on that, or contact the IRS. If your husband filed a tax return last year and claimed you and the children as dependents, you should be entitled to at least part of that rebate. It just might pay to check!
I know where you are coming from. Even though my husband makes more money than he did years ago, he does it working 2 jobs just to make ends meet after I became ill and since we're trying to pay off debt from when he was severely under-employed in 2005 (made $13K that year; we were forced to sell our mobile home). But income alone does not determine whether a person is rich or poor. Where you live, family size, illness, job loss....many things go into that. A single, healthy person living in Tennessee might be considered pretty well-off, but a family with a lot of children and unavoidable medical and recent financial hardship may not be. I think that we all need to be grateful for what we have; even those of us with difficulties have it a lot better than many people in the world. And let's, as Mike Huckabee says, be thankful that we live in a country that people are trying to break INTO and not one they're trying to break OUT of.
I see your point in one regard. I've never believed in the graduated income tax scale. In fact, I support Mike Huckabee and the fair tax, which would be a consumption tax, which would be equitable for everyone. However, what we're talking about here is an economic stimulus package that puts money to spend on extras in people's hands who normally can't afford it. If you make more than $75,000 as an individual or $150,000 as a married couple, you can, in all likelihood, afford to invest in the economy. In our case, as you've seen if you've read my other comments, we are a family of 8 who make just about right at the SINGLE PERSON limit. Plus am chronically ill with poor insurance coverage; most of my treatment is not covered by insurance anyway. If we are going to invest in the economy, we NEED that rebate. And we DO pay taxes, so if you look at it that way, the rebate isn't coming from what you've paid, but from what we've paid.
I am in the same boat. My oldest child is 17. I haven't read anything about that specifically, but my guess is that since this is a rebate, not a child credit, you will still get that extra $300. After all, you still get a dependent deduction for a 17-year-old, even if you don't get the child credit. This is a rebate of what you've paid in taxes, not a determination of what you will get back. Educated guess, anyway....
Yes, you will get a rebate. You must make at least $3,000 in earned income in order to qualify, which you do, though since I don't know how much you paid in taxes, I don't know if it will be the maximum of $1,200 per couple or not, but it should. Also, $300 per child. Got this from the White House website, so they ought to know, right?!
I think whether $75K a year is poor depends on your circumstances. Where you live, whether or not you own a home (homeowners get that nice tax deduction), whether or not you are dealing with any chronic/serious illness in the family, whether you have insurance. I think it is callous to make such a statement to someone you don't know and don't know their circumstances. To the writer of the comment: take your rebate and enjoy it; you have obviously paid a good part of your income in taxes, so all they are giving you back is part of your own money!
Social security records is a big one, plus prior year tax returns. As long as your combined family income is less than $150,000, you should get your $3,300. We have six children, and we qualify according to income, so we should get $3,000. I'd heard mixed reports about whether they were putting a maximum on number of children, but the White House website (they should know, right?) says $300 per child. They give an EXAMPLE of what a qualifying couple with two children will receive, but there is nothing stating that the rebate is limited to a certain number of children.
You're in the same situation as we are, and about the same income (though my husband works 2 jobs, and we have six children). From what I understand, the income limit is for a married couple, doesn't matter where it comes from, because they consider the fact that that income supports a family, not a single person. And according to the White House web site, you will get $1,800 (you and your husband, plus $300 for each child). Also, the checks are supposed to go out in May. Congrats!
That's a good sound bite. I hope you get something though. Income limits are $75,000 for an individual, $150,000 for married filing jointly. But I believe individuals up to about $84 - $87 thousand and couples up to $174,000 will get a partial rebate. Plus $300 per child (some reports the number of children is limited, but I did not see that on the White House site tonight.
First of all, according to the White House website, there is no limit on the number of children (which is good for us since we have six children, I'm chronically ill and my husband has to work 2 jobs just to pay the bills).
Second, CNN (link metioned above) is now reporting that it was an earlier version of that article that said this was a kind of "advance" on next year's tax refund, but this is not the case, either. It won't be subtracted from next year's return, nor will it be taxed.
And for those of you who are complaining about not getting the rebate, they are going to people who need them in order to have any extra to buy things they couldn't normally afford. We have six children, and are friends with a family who has 4 still at home; our two families don't make $150,000 TOGETHER, neve mind separately. I think before you continue saying how "unfair" all of this is, you should try walking a mile in our shoes.
First of all, according to the White House website, there is no limit on the number of children (which is good for us since we have six children, I'm chronically ill and my husband has to work 2 jobs just to pay the bills).
Second, CNN (link metioned above) is now reporting that it was an earlier version of that article that said this was a kind of "advance" on next year's tax refund, but this is not the case, either. It won't be subtracted from next year's return, nor will it be taxed.
And for those of you who are complaining about not getting the rebate, they are going to people who need them in order to have any extra to buy things they couldn't normally afford. We have six children, and are friends with a family who has 4 still at home; our two families don't make $150,000 TOGETHER, neve mind separately. I think before you continue saying how "unfair" all of this is, you should try walking a mile in our shoes.
"Middle class Americans are taxed to the hilt, and inflation is the "invisible tax" that devalues our currency over time while the rich stay rich, and the poor get poorer."
That's something most people don't realize in this country.
heres a great idea.....dont have any kids. Oh wait, you already made that mistake. That is the one universal mistake that people should have to live with - no medicare, no medicaid, no SSI, no help of any kind. When people start dying off because of their drive to breed, them maybe, perhaps, people will stop breeding themselves into debt.
I made 137k last year, I'm single, no degree, no crumbsnatchers, under 35....hmmm.....looks like I'm not doing so bad. But all these people you mention, (including yourself), they are all married with kids. There might possibly be a pattern.
Oh yea..and I only work for a year...every other year, that is.
Oddly, the comment count doesn't seem to be updating for this post on Philip's main page.
It is an interesting discussion, though, and I like reading about other people's strategies. I'm a risk-averse person, obviously. I'm actually thinking that the best investment for our money this year will be retrofitting our home for even greater energy efficiency. We'll focus on that as soon as we make the last mortgage payment in late April or early May.
That gem that most millionaires have declared bankruptcy is just wrong. Sounds like someone needs to go back to the basics and read Millionaire Next Door.
Good points on borrowing and sharing. I actually wrote a post on that just a couple of months ago:
Why don't people share more?
Well I figured I'd chime in with how we sit in this. Six figures and savings vs stuff seems to be the key. It's not that 6F goes less far, but that 6F with savings isn't going to go nearly as far for "stuff". The savings is the key. You're making the choice of stuff now vs savings. If you want to live like the perceived 6F income, AND have savings, you need to bump up the income another 30-50K a year to compensate for the fact you're saving (which is very much not part of the 6F perceived lifestyle). I think you're making the better choice to limit consumption.
I live in an area a smidge more expensive than Ann Arbor (according to some on-line calculator), the suburbs of Atlanta, GA, and my wife is a homeschooler with some PT income and we're pretty close to paycheck to paycheck at around 70K a year... with 3 kids. We also started very young as parents (19 and 21), and started off in debt. We've gotten out of debt, and back into it. We live in a decent house, but not a huge one. We drive used mini-vans, I carpool to work, I take left-overs for lunch, and type this on my 4 year-old iBook (our most advanced computer... bought used).
We could hit the six-figures if my wife worked, but we'd lose the benefits of her (a certified teacher) teaching our kids (one of which is too far advanced to stick in public school, and one of which has some special needs), and all that goes with her being at home most days of the week (cleaning, cooking, childcare, etc).
The thing I've tried to remember in regards to debt and finances is that while we're not rolling in it, we're not too bad off in the net worth department and for US, the time with our kids while they're still young is more important than getting the head-start on our savings. THAT SAID, I'd love to save more, and we're constantly working to be able to save more, I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. In 10 years we could have an extra 250K in the bank, or a nicer house and cars, or a decade of all the extra-memories shared with our kids from one of us being home with them all the time. I'll take the memories every time.
I chuckled when I read the last comment. Mark, you're exactly right, but your final phrase reminds me to be aware of one of my foibles. Someone (I forget who) wrote: "beware of anything you find youself describing as 'perfectly good.'" If you have hoarding tendencies that phrase can lead you to a cellar/attic/garage full of unnecessary "stuff."
Freecycle (I second Mark's plug) is not only a great resource for locating needed items, it can be a priceless outlet for some of that "perfectly good" stuff you're holding on to for no reason, and that somebody else might actually need.
Finally, working back--sharing, borrowing. This is a truly radical idea for most Americans today. Everyone has (or wants) a full tool set, major appliances, mowers, snowblowers...and a lot of it is used only occasionally because neighbors don't feel comfortable sharing the purchase and use of, well--anything! This goes to the root of consumer culture, disconnected communities, and a good thing like individualism taken WAY too literally.
Thanks for this post, and the forum for discussing.
My apartment is the size of a shoebox. And anytime I "need" to buy something, I take a look around and realize I can't fit anything else in! That won't work for anybody who lives in a comfortably-sized place, but it's stopped me from buying all kinds of crap that I'd only end up tripping over.
Brings along all the pros & cons of interpersonal relationships but you could BORROW an item of a neighbour, relative and/or colleague. Puts the unused item to good use and saves on landfill.
As a bloke who has walked into a home improvement store and got all excited about the power tools section when all I need was to put up a set of shelves. Turns out my brother/father both had required tools in shed.
Fifth way is second/third/etc hand stuff I have to plug the Freecycle network here http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=freecycle
People often get rid of perfectly usable stuff.
Cheers
Mark
Sorry to nitpick, but the phrase in the title should be "making due" rather than "making do." Why is that more correct? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Seems like an odd use of the word due. But, I thought I'd let you know.
Yeah, there's a known issue with the comment counts. The admins know that it happens on an occasional post, but haven't been able to figure out what's going on.
Making non-financial investments (such as insulating your house, buying good tools, or stocking up when there are good sales on grocery items) is often a more profitable choice than investing in stocks or bonds.
An excellent and well-worded factual comment. If you're not already a Republican, you should be! We're not rich by any means, but nor do I consider us poor, just tight after a whole lot of difficulties. I think it might be a good idea, if we're going to have any "entitlements," to work them like they work social security/disability. You have to have paid so much into the system before you can collect, unless your circumstances are extreme (i.e., a stay-at-home disabled mom whose husband is killed), and even they ought to be temporary. I give and help others when I can, and I believe that's the best way to do it, not having the government give hand-outs. But it is perfectly understandable that people are frustrated because the government takes their hard-earned money and gives it to someone who is too lazy to work. That's called re-distribution of wealth, and it's socialistic/communistic and WRONG.
From everything I've heard and read, they're not doing that this time. It's not coming off of next year's tax refund, and it won't be taxed.
In this case, you have an excellent point. I'm a stay-at-home mother of 6, and would feel exactly the same way if I were in your situation. I wonder if a determination will be made based on when you became single again. I would definitely check with a tax professional on that, or contact the IRS. If your husband filed a tax return last year and claimed you and the children as dependents, you should be entitled to at least part of that rebate. It just might pay to check!
I know where you are coming from. Even though my husband makes more money than he did years ago, he does it working 2 jobs just to make ends meet after I became ill and since we're trying to pay off debt from when he was severely under-employed in 2005 (made $13K that year; we were forced to sell our mobile home). But income alone does not determine whether a person is rich or poor. Where you live, family size, illness, job loss....many things go into that. A single, healthy person living in Tennessee might be considered pretty well-off, but a family with a lot of children and unavoidable medical and recent financial hardship may not be. I think that we all need to be grateful for what we have; even those of us with difficulties have it a lot better than many people in the world. And let's, as Mike Huckabee says, be thankful that we live in a country that people are trying to break INTO and not one they're trying to break OUT of.
I see your point in one regard. I've never believed in the graduated income tax scale. In fact, I support Mike Huckabee and the fair tax, which would be a consumption tax, which would be equitable for everyone. However, what we're talking about here is an economic stimulus package that puts money to spend on extras in people's hands who normally can't afford it. If you make more than $75,000 as an individual or $150,000 as a married couple, you can, in all likelihood, afford to invest in the economy. In our case, as you've seen if you've read my other comments, we are a family of 8 who make just about right at the SINGLE PERSON limit. Plus am chronically ill with poor insurance coverage; most of my treatment is not covered by insurance anyway. If we are going to invest in the economy, we NEED that rebate. And we DO pay taxes, so if you look at it that way, the rebate isn't coming from what you've paid, but from what we've paid.
I am in the same boat. My oldest child is 17. I haven't read anything about that specifically, but my guess is that since this is a rebate, not a child credit, you will still get that extra $300. After all, you still get a dependent deduction for a 17-year-old, even if you don't get the child credit. This is a rebate of what you've paid in taxes, not a determination of what you will get back. Educated guess, anyway....
Yes, you will get a rebate. You must make at least $3,000 in earned income in order to qualify, which you do, though since I don't know how much you paid in taxes, I don't know if it will be the maximum of $1,200 per couple or not, but it should. Also, $300 per child. Got this from the White House website, so they ought to know, right?!
I think whether $75K a year is poor depends on your circumstances. Where you live, whether or not you own a home (homeowners get that nice tax deduction), whether or not you are dealing with any chronic/serious illness in the family, whether you have insurance. I think it is callous to make such a statement to someone you don't know and don't know their circumstances. To the writer of the comment: take your rebate and enjoy it; you have obviously paid a good part of your income in taxes, so all they are giving you back is part of your own money!
Social security records is a big one, plus prior year tax returns. As long as your combined family income is less than $150,000, you should get your $3,300. We have six children, and we qualify according to income, so we should get $3,000. I'd heard mixed reports about whether they were putting a maximum on number of children, but the White House website (they should know, right?) says $300 per child. They give an EXAMPLE of what a qualifying couple with two children will receive, but there is nothing stating that the rebate is limited to a certain number of children.
You're in the same situation as we are, and about the same income (though my husband works 2 jobs, and we have six children). From what I understand, the income limit is for a married couple, doesn't matter where it comes from, because they consider the fact that that income supports a family, not a single person. And according to the White House web site, you will get $1,800 (you and your husband, plus $300 for each child). Also, the checks are supposed to go out in May. Congrats!
That's a good sound bite. I hope you get something though. Income limits are $75,000 for an individual, $150,000 for married filing jointly. But I believe individuals up to about $84 - $87 thousand and couples up to $174,000 will get a partial rebate. Plus $300 per child (some reports the number of children is limited, but I did not see that on the White House site tonight.
First of all, according to the White House website, there is no limit on the number of children (which is good for us since we have six children, I'm chronically ill and my husband has to work 2 jobs just to pay the bills).
Second, CNN (link metioned above) is now reporting that it was an earlier version of that article that said this was a kind of "advance" on next year's tax refund, but this is not the case, either. It won't be subtracted from next year's return, nor will it be taxed.
And for those of you who are complaining about not getting the rebate, they are going to people who need them in order to have any extra to buy things they couldn't normally afford. We have six children, and are friends with a family who has 4 still at home; our two families don't make $150,000 TOGETHER, neve mind separately. I think before you continue saying how "unfair" all of this is, you should try walking a mile in our shoes.
First of all, according to the White House website, there is no limit on the number of children (which is good for us since we have six children, I'm chronically ill and my husband has to work 2 jobs just to pay the bills).
Second, CNN (link metioned above) is now reporting that it was an earlier version of that article that said this was a kind of "advance" on next year's tax refund, but this is not the case, either. It won't be subtracted from next year's return, nor will it be taxed.
And for those of you who are complaining about not getting the rebate, they are going to people who need them in order to have any extra to buy things they couldn't normally afford. We have six children, and are friends with a family who has 4 still at home; our two families don't make $150,000 TOGETHER, neve mind separately. I think before you continue saying how "unfair" all of this is, you should try walking a mile in our shoes.
"Middle class Americans are taxed to the hilt, and inflation is the "invisible tax" that devalues our currency over time while the rich stay rich, and the poor get poorer."
That's something most people don't realize in this country.
heres a great idea.....dont have any kids. Oh wait, you already made that mistake. That is the one universal mistake that people should have to live with - no medicare, no medicaid, no SSI, no help of any kind. When people start dying off because of their drive to breed, them maybe, perhaps, people will stop breeding themselves into debt.
I made 137k last year, I'm single, no degree, no crumbsnatchers, under 35....hmmm.....looks like I'm not doing so bad. But all these people you mention, (including yourself), they are all married with kids. There might possibly be a pattern.
Oh yea..and I only work for a year...every other year, that is.
I currently make 5 figures, and I really think 6 figures is the perfect american dream.
Oddly, the comment count doesn't seem to be updating for this post on Philip's main page.
It is an interesting discussion, though, and I like reading about other people's strategies. I'm a risk-averse person, obviously. I'm actually thinking that the best investment for our money this year will be retrofitting our home for even greater energy efficiency. We'll focus on that as soon as we make the last mortgage payment in late April or early May.