Current Events > 6 years ago, I was making $10k a year part time at a Best Buy, now I make $9000

(+) Yeah! (+)

a month

HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfuckwithme

Straight cash homie
---

Nice! Five years ago I was barely making anything too.
---

moose_knuckle posted...

Straight cash homie

You're goddamn right.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Nice! Five years ago I was barely making anything too.

Yeah, it honestly feels good to look back and see how much progress you've made.

SuperGamer5 posted...

Yeah, it honestly feels good to look back and see how much progress you've made.

Yep. Keep on aiming for higher, though! There's no reason why you can't see more tremendous growth over the next five years.
---

Good shit bro.

What do you do?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

SuperGamer5 posted...

Yeah, it honestly feels good to look back and see how much progress you've made.

Yep. Keep on aiming for higher, though! There's no reason why you can't see more tremendous growth over the next five years.

Hell yeah; that's the dream!

emblem boy posted...

Good shit bro.

What do you do?

I'm a software engineer.

SuperGamer5 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

SuperGamer5 posted...

Yeah, it honestly feels good to look back and see how much progress you've made.

Yep. Keep on aiming for higher, though! There's no reason why you can't see more tremendous growth over the next five years.

Hell yeah; that's the dream!

emblem boy posted...

Good shit bro.

What do you do?

I'm a software engineer.

Nice, me too! Five years ago I made $5,000 for the whole year. Then $10,000 the next, then $30,000, then $73,000, and now around $115,000.

Since I'm getting close to capping out in terms of salary + bonus, I'll be looking to acquire an investment property and grow a side business so I can see the same time of progress over the next year too. It's definitely getting much harder to make more money, though. Looking to supplement my salary with passive income. What about you?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Since I'm getting close to capping out in terms of salary + bonus,

Why do you say that?
---

I make 40k a year should I feel bad?
---

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Since I'm getting close to capping out in terms of salary + bonus,

Why do you say that?

Because there's diminishing returns in terms of salary/bonus. Putting in more effort starts to get you less and less income as you get to this income range. If you want more, you need to start investing into the stock market/real estate/side business/etc.
---

assassinCrash posted...

I make 40k a year should I feel bad?

Not at all as far as I'm concerned.

Aeriis posted...

6 years ago I made nothing. I didn't even have a job.

Now I make 1000 a month!! ^_^

;_;

That's still progress.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Because there's diminishing returns in terms of salary/bonus. Putting in more effort starts to get you less and less income as you get to this income range. If you want more, you need to start investing into the stock market/real estate/side business/etc.

I'm glad people told me this before I got to where I am currently. Now I can have this information ready to utilize right away to grow my income rather than just taking my paycheck and stashing it in savings or something.

assassinCrash posted...

I make 40k a year should I feel bad?

If you actually care about making more money then yes.
---

SuperGamer5 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Because there's diminishing returns in terms of salary/bonus. Putting in more effort starts to get you less and less income as you get to this income range. If you want more, you need to start investing into the stock market/real estate/side business/etc.

I'm glad people told me this before I got to where I am currently. Now I can have this information ready to utilize right away to grow my income rather than just taking my paycheck and stashing it in savings or something.

Yep. If you can save up a chunk of cash and buy a property that needs to be remodeled, you could flip it within a year and add a nice $20,000 to $50,000 to your income per year. Although you'd have to do most of the remodeling work yourself. It's what I'm considering doing if I don't find a rental property I like.
---

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

Atralis posted...

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

If you're making 80k a year you should be getting more than 4k take home. You should be getting around 56k per year take home. So around 4,600 per month take home. (More during months with 3 pay periods, less during months with 2)
---

Man, that would be wonderful. I would be happy as well, sitting on a mountain of cash.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Atralis posted...

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

If you're making 80k a year you should be getting more than 4k take home. You should be getting around 56k per year take home. So around 4,600 per month take home. (More during months with 3 pay periods, less during months with 2)

How do you figure? Like I said about a third of my income is taxed. That leaves about 1000 a week leftover.

The math isn't complicated. (80,000 / 52) * .66 * 4

Atralis posted...

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

You shouldn't be paying that much in taxes. Where do you live?
You say contract, are you a contractor?
---

Atralis posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Atralis posted...

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

If you're making 80k a year you should be getting more than 4k take home. You should be getting around 56k per year take home. So around 4,600 per month take home. (More during months with 3 pay periods, less during months with 2)

How do you figure? Like I said about a third of my income is taxed. That leaves about 1000 a week leftover.

The math isn't complicated. (80,000 / 52) * .66 * 4

$80,000 * 30% total taxes = $24,000 to taxes.
$80,000 - $24,000 = $56,000 take home.

$56,000 take home / 12 months = ~$4,666 per month.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Atralis posted...

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

If you're making 80k a year you should be getting more than 4k take home. You should be getting around 56k per year take home. So around 4,600 per month take home. (More during months with 3 pay periods, less during months with 2)

I suppose you are half right but its actually more like 4,400. (.3 is not 1/3) I got a bump in pay last year from like 77 to 80 but I still have that 4k number in my head and making 2180 mid months doesn't really change that much in your personal financial calculations.

My basic point was that "9k a month" done in terms of what you make before taxes is hugely different than 9k a month after taxes which is something a lot of people on this board making more like 30,000 a year would not realize. When you get into middle class ranges in terms of income they hit you with the full force of the hammer in terms of income tax and you lose about a third of your income. You lose about a third at 80k you lose about a third at 300k because that is how our system is set up.

I live in Colorado by the way. Our state tax is a flat tax of 4.63%.

Atralis posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Atralis posted...

How much do you actually make?

I make "80,000" a year according to my contract by I make more like $4,000 a month because about a third of my income gets stripped away in taxes.

If you're making 80k a year you should be getting more than 4k take home. You should be getting around 56k per year take home. So around 4,600 per month take home. (More during months with 3 pay periods, less during months with 2)

I suppose you are right but its actually more like 4,400. I got a bump in pay last year from like 77 to 80 but I still have that 4k number in my head and making 2180 mid months doesn't really change that much in your personal financial calculations.

My basic point was that "9k a month" done in terms of what you make before taxes is hugely different than 9k a month after taxes which is something a lot of people on this board making more like 30,000 a year would not realize. When you get into middle class ranges in terms of income they hit you with the full force of the hammer in terms of income tax and you lose about a third of your income. You lose about a third at 80k you lose about a third at 300k because that is how our system is set up.

This is true, but be careful saying this on CE. There are some unbelievably stupid people here who refuse to acknowledge that your income will be around 30% less once all taxes are taken out. No joke, they'll argue with you on whether or not it's actually 30% even though some basic math would show that to be the case.

And then they'll argue about how it should be 40% or 50% lol.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is true, but be careful saying this on CE. There are some unbelievably stupid people here who refuse to acknowledge that your income will be around 30% less once all taxes are taken out. No joke, they'll argue with you on whether or not it's actually 30% even though some basic math would show that to be the case.

And then they'll argue about how it should be 40% or 50% lol.

I sympathize on both sides to be honest. I pay a a much higher tax rate in terms of % of my income than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, or basically anyone rich because I play by the set of rules that the working man plays by and they play by the set of rules that billionaires play by. These guys actually admit that these pay these rates and to their credit most of them agree it is bullshit that they pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries do.

I don't consider myself to be bad off by any means but I would demand they pay at least what I'm paying.

Atralis posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is true, but be careful saying this on CE. There are some unbelievably stupid people here who refuse to acknowledge that your income will be around 30% less once all taxes are taken out. No joke, they'll argue with you on whether or not it's actually 30% even though some basic math would show that to be the case.

And then they'll argue about how it should be 40% or 50% lol.

I sympathize on both sides to be honest. I pay a a much higher tax rate in terms of % of my income than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, or basically anyone rich because I play by the set of rules that the working man plays by and they play by the set of rules that billionaires play by. These guys actually admit that these pay these rates and to their credit most of them agree it is bullshit that they pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries do.

I don't consider myself to be bad off by any means but I would demand they pay at least what I'm paying.

I'm not sure that the pay rate matters. What matters is the total amount they paid. They contribute far more than they consumed, and because of them hundreds of thousands of people are contributing taxes that they wouldn't have otherwise contributed. That's why the IRS is friendly to businesses - the tax rate a business owner contributes is multiplied by the taxes contributed by the employees as well.

I do think billionaires should have a higher rate, but it wouldn't meaningfully impact tax revenue and it doesn't change that in terms of raw numbers, their 15% tax rate or whatever is a mindboggingly larger sum than our 30% of our income.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Atralis posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is true, but be careful saying this on CE. There are some unbelievably stupid people here who refuse to acknowledge that your income will be around 30% less once all taxes are taken out. No joke, they'll argue with you on whether or not it's actually 30% even though some basic math would show that to be the case.

And then they'll argue about how it should be 40% or 50% lol.

I sympathize on both sides to be honest. I pay a a much higher tax rate in terms of % of my income than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, or basically anyone rich because I play by the set of rules that the working man plays by and they play by the set of rules that billionaires play by. These guys actually admit that these pay these rates and to their credit most of them agree it is bullshit that they pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries do.

I don't consider myself to be bad off by any means but I would demand they pay at least what I'm paying.

I'm not sure that the pay rate matters. What matters is the total amount they paid. They contribute far more than they consumed, and because of them hundreds of thousands of people are contributing taxes that they wouldn't have otherwise contributed. That's why the IRS is friendly to businesses - the tax rate a business owner contributes is multiplied by the taxes contributed by the employees as well.

I do think billionaires should have a higher rate, but it wouldn't meaningfully impact tax revenue and it doesn't change that in terms of raw numbers, their 15% tax rate or whatever is a mindboggingly larger sum than our 30% of our income.

That just seems nuts to me and I'll explain why.

Imagine a family business (lets say restaurants) that has 30 family members working it. A grandpa patriarch and a bunch of kids and grandkids working the business. If he pays his family fair wages the business as a whole will maybe pay 20% in taxes on those wages evened out between the higher taxed workers (managers, the man himself) and the lower taxed workers (waiters, etc).

But under your system if he kept all the money to himself and just paid his employees in gifts or under the table he could pay a 1% tax rate. Because fuck equity of any sort. Him keeping all the money to himself means that he is obviously contributing 30 times more to the economy than if he actually paid his family members for working.

What you are talking about would be a hundred times more regressive than a flat tax. You are either ignorant or nuts if you feel that a billionaire should pay as much in taxes as people that make less in their lives than he makes in a week.

Atralis posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Atralis posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

This is true, but be careful saying this on CE. There are some unbelievably stupid people here who refuse to acknowledge that your income will be around 30% less once all taxes are taken out. No joke, they'll argue with you on whether or not it's actually 30% even though some basic math would show that to be the case.

And then they'll argue about how it should be 40% or 50% lol.

I sympathize on both sides to be honest. I pay a a much higher tax rate in terms of % of my income than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Donald Trump or Mitt Romney, or basically anyone rich because I play by the set of rules that the working man plays by and they play by the set of rules that billionaires play by. These guys actually admit that these pay these rates and to their credit most of them agree it is bullshit that they pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries do.

I don't consider myself to be bad off by any means but I would demand they pay at least what I'm paying.

I'm not sure that the pay rate matters. What matters is the total amount they paid. They contribute far more than they consumed, and because of them hundreds of thousands of people are contributing taxes that they wouldn't have otherwise contributed. That's why the IRS is friendly to businesses - the tax rate a business owner contributes is multiplied by the taxes contributed by the employees as well.

I do think billionaires should have a higher rate, but it wouldn't meaningfully impact tax revenue and it doesn't change that in terms of raw numbers, their 15% tax rate or whatever is a mindboggingly larger sum than our 30% of our income.

That just seems nuts to me and I'll explain why.

Imagine a family business (lets say restaurants) that has 30 family members working it. A grandpa patriarch and a bunch of kids and grandkids working the business. If he pays his family fair wages the business as a whole will maybe pay 20% in taxes on those wages evened out between the higher taxed workers (managers, the man himself) and the lower taxed workers (waiters, etc).

But under your system if he kept all the money to himself and just paid his employees in gifts or under the table he could pay a 1% tax rate. Because fuck equity of any sort. Him keeping all the money to himself means that he is obviously contributing 30 times more to the economy than if he actually paid his family members for working.

What you are talking about would be a hundred times more regressive than a flat tax. You are either ignorant or nuts if you feel that a billionaire should pay as much in taxes as people that make less in their lives than he makes in a week.

What I'm saying is that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc, already pay vastly more than we do. The tax rate is not the most important variable to me, because 20% of 5 billion is vastly more than 30% of 80k. If anything, we need to pay less. Not them pay more.
---