Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (196326)	7/30/2004 5:19:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571680

Yeah, I know, moving from Portland to Orange County and getting married shortly after that are the major reasons. But still, had I been taxed at this lower rate while I was single, I would have had more money saved up for this phase of my life. Unfortunately, government had already decided that while I was single, I could not be trusted to save my money and put it to good use. Now I'm married, so the government now figures I could use more of the money I earn every year. Geez, why wasn't I allowed to save as much money as I could while I was single? Well, pretty soon my wife will start working, and we'll come close to Kerry's cut-off point for the "rich," assuming that point stays where he originally promised it would be. But then my wife isn't sure she wants to continue working after we get our first child, so that means most of the money we'll be earning as DINKs (dual-income, no kids) will be used to pay off debts and build up a savings account. Unfortunately, the government will consider us "rich" for those DINK years of ours, which means our ability to save for the future will be curtailed. Ten, YOU decided to move to OC.....probably the most expensive housing market in the country AND you were able to buy a home. There are many people who grew up in OC but can't afford to buy even a condo there; instead, they are forced to move elsewhere. In other words, you are considered privileged. You were somewhat critical of the article I posted recently regarding couples leaving CA but in reality, it very much reflects conditions in CA. My friends are a couple of years younger than you and recently realized they would never be able to afford a house in CA no matter how hard they worked......so they're moving to NC. However, many people like you and your wife are choosing not to move. As a consequence, they are going through much of the same financial pain that you're experiencing. CA's cost of living is simply out of control. Presumbably, you negotiated a substantive increase in your salary when you moved there........its called a cost of living raise. I hope you did. That's what a lot of CA tranferees are demanding. Its a fact of life. I don't want to appear insensitive but frankly, do you want the whole country to maneuver around your life style or mine for that matter? Most people are not nearly as fortunate as you and your wife, and yet they have worked much harder. That's not to denigrate what you have accomplished but simply to put things in perspective. As for sinking your whole savings into a house.......tell me about it. I will be doing the same shortly here in Seattle. Am I happy about it? Of course not! But I like living on the West coast......unfortunately, the most expensive part of the country in terms of housing. Lifestyle choices can cost heavy money. That too is a fact of life. Do you see the point? My wife and I are hardly "super-rich," but we'd sure like to be. But here we are, living the American dream and taking advantage of all the opportunities that are offered us. We know that no one is just going to hand us a pot of gold, so we're going to save and invest whatever we can so that we and our future kids can live a life worth working for. But of course, a big chunk of our discretionary income will always be decided by the class warriors who decide for us whether we're "winning life's lottery" or not. It's as if we owe society a favor for being where we are. Try telling that to my wife face-to-face; I'm sure you'll get a rather colorful reaction. ;-) First I am sure the 200k will be taxable income after deductions which means you probably have to be making at least $250K to qualify. [Now watch DR, the CPA, slam me on this one].<g> Secondly, here's an article you might find interesting. [BTW I suggest working to get that 200K figure set higher rather than defending the wealthy people in the country.........they don't deserve your defense IMO.] uslaboragainstwar.org ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (196326)	7/30/2004 6:42:10 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571680

Ten, re: Kerry has a long history of flipping or at least sitting on the fence. He reiterated his dividing line of $200K last night, but who's to say that the line won't be lowered to, say, $150K? Or $100K? And is that $200K cutoff for married couples, or is it for single people and married people filing separately? I hate to break this to you, but we have to fund the government, especially when we are "at war". You seem to think you are suffering at $200K, but there are a lot of folks that may think you are pretty well off; they are making $70K and supporting 3-4 kids. Trying to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. I understand that you only care about yourself, and your family; the "have's and have more's". Some of us don't think that way. To each his own. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (196326)	8/1/2004 4:41:52 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571680

Tenchusatsu, RE: "but that's cold comfort as our expenses are much higher now than I ever imagined them to be." You both should create a household annual budget, if you haven't already. At a minimum, an annual figure for savings, investing, expenses and income. For most years, I lived on half of my take home pay, and saved the rest. Also did this back when my income was tiny - but I made huge sacrifices - have you ever lived in an apartment that's so cheap, you wake up one morning only to learn a murderer dumped a dead body in the outside dumpster located only a few yards from your apartment door? I've also lived where 3 of us were crammed into one small bedroom in order to divide the rent bill by 3. I kept my previous car until my mechanic pleaded with me to get rid of it (which I did, with a trade of Intc leaps.) I wore the same NY Eves outfit for many years and it was an eye sore for some (cheap plaid skirt, not a nice velvet blue expensive dress.) Finally, someone at Microsoft complained about it and I made them pick out a new dress - which I still have. Many years ago, I started a whole life insur $500/mo (i.e. which may be $700/mo in today's dollar) and it consumed a large portion of my take home pay back when I first started it (even my insurance agent told me I should "live a little"), but I did this specifically for grad school savings so a child of mine has the money for higher education. The cash portion of it that may be taken out (while still maintaining the policy) is now around $70k or so (the interest rate was super good back then - I can't believe they're still paying at that fixed high rate). Now the rates aren't too good, so am putting on hold any increase I'd like to do on whole insurance. (Whole life insurance was the only way I figured out how you could save for a child's college BEFORE the child is born, where growth is tax deferred.) RE: "getting married" Buying an expensive house is probably the reason, not marriage. If anything, living with another person reduces expenses because your bills are shared (if the other person is working). On another note, to generate additional income, you could rent out a room in your house. I would definitely be doing this, if I were you. People I know at Intel and Microsoft, when starting out, stacked into a house with a bunch of other colleagues so expenses were extremely low, meanwhile, plowing savings into the stock market. I know of one Intel guy that's younger than you who is doing this right now. He gets excited when Intc drops, because then he can afford to buy even more of it - he's great. Like you, he is very frugal. RE: "I would have had more money saved up for this phase of my life. Unfortunately, government had already decided that while I was single, I could not be trusted to save my money and put it to good use. Now I'm married, so the government now figures I could use more of the money I earn every year. Geez, why wasn't I allowed to save as much money as I could while I was single?" Totally agree with you here. The govt penalizes savers and discourages responsible behavior. Ridiculous. Check out this guy: Ridge has 210k to 875k networth at age 58. Given his networth, it's a given he'll be coming after your fica, when he retires, nevermind the fact that he should have saved more money during his working career. And he was the Governor of a State too. cnn.com RE: "pretty soon my wife will start working, and we'll come close to Kerry's cut-off point for the "rich" City folks get hugely penalized by the govt's taxation system. The govt thinks that CA and NY cost of living is the same as Alabama. This is why people move to cheaper places. But I don't think you have to do that, just hang in there and keep your costs low, and try to save as much as you can right now. Couples finances are like corporations - those couples that take advantage of a downturn get stronger, those that don't, are at risk of getting weaker. RE: "But then my wife isn't sure she wants to continue working after we get our first child" Pharmacies have great flexible, part-time hours. Makes sense to always maintain certification and do some minimal hours of work. RE: "which means our ability to save for the future will be curtailed." The govt penalizes savers. Congress is controlled by a bunch of spendaholics. Regards, Amy J