digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Millionaires say economy squeezing them too

msnbc.msn.com — Even millionaires are feeling the economic squeeze, with many saying they don ’t even “feel” wealthy. But as a group, they are optimistic that things will improve in the next year.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 04/30/2008, -22/+129Quick! More tax cuts for the wealthy! Put it on the Bank of China credit card!
    • Terr01, on 04/30/2008, -5/+46The problem is that a lot of people don't really comprehend the scale of "rich" in America.

      Due to inflation, being a "millionaire" is a lot easier and a lot less meaningful than it was in the past. I mean, we've got like 7% "millionaires", but the truly wealthy are even richer.

      A nice little zoom in/out demonstration:
      http://www.lcurve.org/
      • tdogg241, on 04/30/2008, -8/+5*****. I make/have nowhere near a million dollars and I'm getting by just fine.
        • staplez, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3How old are you? If you're 65 you better hope to god you have enough saved up to be close to a million, if not a million dollars. If you spend $50k a year and you only have a million saved up for retirement, you only have enough for 20 years. Lots of people are living to 85 and beyond. This isn't including medical problems, which are very expensive. A LOT of older people are now millionaires. I'm not just talking about people who made 100k+ a year. The average person should be aiming to save up a million by retirement. Food for thought.
          • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Your view of humanity and social competence is very high. Or it may be that you're high?
      • ralphthemagi, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4It's true. And with respect to @tdogg241, where do you live?

        A million dollars in net worth really isn't a lot these days. If you live a city like New York, Chicago or San Francisco, a million dollars doesn't go very far. $1m buys you studio apartment in the Upper East Side. That's not exactly lifestyles of the rich and famous material.

        If you live in Kansas off I-70... yeah, $1m probably buys you a mansion.
        • tdogg241, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I live in Seattle. Not NY/SF cost-of-living, but not exactly cheap either.

          I make quite a bit below the median income for the area as well, so millionaires around here have no reason to complain.
        • NYC10004, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0You're right. 1 million in NYC will get you a passable home at best.
        • Gir53457, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I live in the Bay Area and barely scratch by on minimum wage, but only because I live with my mother and she pays my insurance. We're even considering moving to Idaho because We can't afford to keep our small house even on 900K a year.

          My grandmother is a millionaire in Florida, but all that really means is that she lives the same lifestyle as the other old folks, except she doesn't rely on federal aid.
      • megaton, on 04/30/2008, -4/+27Thank you. It frustrates me to no end the kind of prejudice I face just because I have a couple million dollars.

        It's not like I don't spend 16 hours a day working for this. It's not like I didn't spend my entire life building my skill set and talent to achieve this. And it's not like I don't drive an average, run-of-the-mill car. (1996 Jeep Wrangler with ~288K miles on it.)

        I bag my groceries like everyone else. I comparison shop like everyone else. I cook dinner like everyone else. I watch the Simpsons and Family Guy like everyone else. I suffer through colds like everyone else.

        But jesus, if you don't like that I'm better off than you, THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Hating me isn't going to improve your situation one iota. (And by the way, I probably paid more in taxes last year than you EARNED, so shut up about tax breaks for the wealthy.)
        • DisposableMike, on 04/30/2008, -10/+9Shut up about tax breaks for the wealthy? The quantity of money that you paid for taxes is irrelevant. I venture to guess that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet probably paid more taxes that some small towns. But how much did they earn?

          We are interested in the percentage/ratio. We don't care that you paid $50,000 in taxes if you earned $450,000, when the average person makes $40,000 and pays $7600.

          If the wealthy own 99.99% of the wealth, then they should be paying 99.99 percent of the taxes. Where did this screwed up idea of splitting the tax burden on population, rather than ability or earnings come from? If Warren Buffet owns hundreds of companies but pays the same amount of taxes that I do, then we have a serious proportional problem. (I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but this is often the thought process for rich persons that I've spoken to, the parent no exception)
          • megaton, on 04/30/2008, -4/+13Regarding income tax, there are such things as "tax brackets" and they scale toward the poor. Someone making $100K a year pays about 20% of their income, while someone who makes up to $8K pays only 10% of their income. (Not to mention that they usually get all their money back in a refund at the end of the fiscal year, because the standard deduction overwhelms the amount they contributed in taxes.)

            When we get into more complicated things, like capital gains taxes, then you're looking at something that pretty much only middle-class and higher families pay. (Since lower-class families usually don't have the kind of excess to be able to invest in other businesses.)

            I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you're flat out wrong. Oh, and 1% of the population pays about 99% of the taxes.
          • Razed, on 04/30/2008, -6/+3You still manage to come off as an arrogant ass-hat in your comments. No amount of money will ever cover that.
          • Gir53457, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2The rich pay more taxes than the poor, however it's a lower percentage.
          • Terr01, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Megaton, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you're flat out wrong too!

            The top 1% pays 39.4% of income taxes not 99%.

            http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf
        • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -9/+3Even if you are a self made millionaire, I find it hard to believe that there isn't an amount of contempt for old money, while empowering bratty, selfish, and materialistic children. Old money serves no purpose but to impoverish more of the middle class by making more money for doing nothing. Old money finances new money to siphon the money away from people who live on credit and become wage slaves. Let's stop pretending that we aren't imprisoned by invisible walls. I agree that there should be no income tax, but there should be a fairly hefty estate tax. There is no ***** reason Paris HIlton should be entitled to billions in inheritence when Republicans bitch about entitlement among the poor. Paris HIlton is doing nothing productive for society and yet the Ayn Randian objectivists would get her back because of some seriously misplaced sense of loyalty, because I'm sure Ayn Rand would've scoffed at a ***** who gets billions for not being either creative or productive.
          • Gir53457, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Then move to a communist country.
          • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Right, because it's only one of two options. I'll ignore your ***** and perpetuate a belief that I have that people who think all problems in life are only solvable by a correct response to a single binary-answer question are ***** morons who don't know how to solve problems. I believe in capitalism, but I don't believe in a completely regulation-free market because the weak get preyed upon and used as wage slaves. Don't pay them too much, or they might have more options.
          • Gir53457, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Also there is not much old money in the country that isn't the result of organized crime (Even the Reagan's wealth if from bootlegging during the prohibition).
          • Gir53457, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1You talk too much about nothing.
        • Screwy1138, on 04/30/2008, -2/+10Ugh, an estate tax is rediculous. Why can't I save up money to pass on to my children? That's f'n rediculous. I have no where near even 300k in assets, but I save and do plan to have cash on hand when I die. That the government would get any part of that is, ugh, disgusting. I already paid income tax on it!
          • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Passing money on to your children is fine, but do they need BILLIONS? Passing billions on to your children and producing a possibly limitless number of generations of kids who do nothing productive for society is cheating the system.
        • NYC10004, on 04/30/2008, -4/+9Megaton, you're not going to win this argument even if you are right. Most people are jealous of what they don't have. They don't care if you worked for it. All they know is that they don't have as much as you do and that makes them ignore the facts.
          For what its worth, what you said has serious merit.
        • roodammy44, on 04/30/2008, -1/+216 hours a day?
          You must either really enjoy your job or are severely masochistic.
        • keenfrenzy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+7I'm nowhere near a millionaire, I live in a suburb of Chicago and I can still appreciate and completely agree with what megaton has to say.

          People have this completely blind concept that the wealthy pay almost nothing in taxes, and that is entirely not the case. In fact, as I have gone from making $5.20 an hour back in 1998 to what I make now (median income for my area) I have found that the percentage I pay in taxes gets larger and the amount I get back at the end of the year gets smaller.

          Anyone with any decent grasp on economics knows how tax brackets work. It's the people with no concept of economics that think the rich live tax free, and it is usually because of their economic ignorance that these people are poor to begin with. Warren Buffet may be the object of ridicule as the stereotypical "old white rich guy" but Warren Buffet wasn't born rich. He worked his butt off as a child and made wise investments throughout his life that allowed him to accumulate the wealth he now possesses. Everyone is free to do this, there is no invisible wall or glass ceiling that prevents hard work and economic wisdom from paying off.

          Do I blame the uber-wealthy for what I pay in taxes? Heck no, I blame the reckless spending habits of the US government.
      • Y0tsuya, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Problem with that graphic is it confuses wealth with income so it's basically useless. For example, a millionarie does not necessarily earn a million dollar/year.
        • Terr01, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1It's a hell of a lot easier to measure income, and in general the only thing that really defrays that is cost-of-living, and once you're making seven figures the cost of living is peanuts.

          If a guy makes $300,000 each year but blows through most of it on drugs, cavior, whores, extravagant parties... it doesn't matter if he has no savings, he's still obviously a member of the "rich" by any conventional measurement.

          No, that graph is not "net worth", which is vastly harder to calculate. I never said it was. However, it's an extremely safe assumption that it correlates strongly with income.
    • ptheroux, on 04/30/2008, -2/+27Tax cuts do not require having the government borrow money from anyone. Borrowing is only required if, after cutting taxes, the government insists on spending more money than the revenue it is taking in. If you want to cut the deficit, CUT SPENDING!
      • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6thank you, yellowcakewalk's comment basically sums up every average latte drinkin liberals mentality.

        (Im a liberal! but I understand the economy!)
      • Nougat, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2So, you're saying we should give more tax cuts to the wealthy, *and* decrease spending?

        Balancing the budget is easy, so long as you don't care who gets screwed. As long as you're spending less than you take in, it doesn't matter who you're taking it from or who you're spending it on, right?

        Besides that, there are plenty of economists that say that running a minimal budget deficit is actually better for the economy in the long term than being balanced.
        • ptheroux, on 04/30/2008, -3/+16"Giving tax cuts to the wealthy" is just another way of saying "Letting people keep more of the money they rightly earned." You are right to say that I don't care about the people who get screwed from budget cuts. Forgive me for caring more about the property rights of society's producers than about the leeches who seek to live off them. By the way, I'm not just taking aim at the poor who have been trained to be dependent on government programs. There are plenty of rich welfare recipients too such as farmers, public employee unions, and defense contractors who deserve to be cut off.
          • Nougat, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3Then let's let everyone keep all of the money they rightly earned, shall we? No more taxes, for anyone, anywhere! You can't afford food for your family? Too bad, I have plenty! You're sick and need healthcare? I can afford it, can you? No? Too bad! Good luck with that!
          • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8@Nougat - Actually, if you let everyone keep the money they earn, prices of all products will drop and businesses will grow, thus allowing for more jobs. When you add taxes, the prices go up and people lose jobs...read your Econ 101 textbook.
        • DisposableMike, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2I'm pretty sure those economists have names like "Milton Friedman", and are entirely responsible for the systems of logic that have left us where we are today. I don't blame them for implementing their policies with swift and unprecedented retardation, but I do blame them for creating (and pimping) a system of choices that leaves no ground for anyone with a concious.

          On the other hand, though, there is always the valid argument that their policies succeeded because of their inherent understanding of the human psyche. And I am willing to accept that. That is also why I choose to not participate in the majority of society.
          • ptheroux, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Show me the source that says Milton Friedman was an advocate of deficit spending and I'll eat my shirt. He was actually a staunch opponent of deficit spending.
            http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/17/milto ...
          • mcquitty, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1"creating (and pimping) a system of choices that leaves no ground for anyone with a concious."

            Really, so when does the government stop you from donating money to charities or to financially supporting someone's health benefits?

            The Tax and Give Away program of Federal Taxation basically says, "We know how to better serve you than you".

            So, I ask... Who can beat the meager 3% ROI on Social Security returns? My local bank can. But, instead we are forced into a system where my SS payments are paying someone today. It's a ponzi scheme, and if I created it, I would go to jail.

            Then there are public works programs, like highways. Except the Federal government give back your money, but with strings attached. "Here, have your money back, minus a small 20% management fee. But, in order to get this money, please do jumping jacks at 5 AM and head stands at 8 PM. If you don't like the rules, you can always say no."

            I want value for my tax dollars. I don't mind paying taxes, but I hate the waste. And anyone who things the government fixes things hasn't been "helped" enough.
      • OwdenBowden, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Welcome to the Party Pal.
    • noodlez, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4reminds me of this video from the onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_ ...
    • edd17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Why do people think that china owns all the US national debt?

      http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/images/2007/04 ...
      http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
      • kemp34, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3They own a lot and are currently buying quite a bit more.
      • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Probably because it's true.

        I understand that your links show otherwise but that is only because they keep Mainland China separate from other territories.

        You can add Taiwan and Thailand onto those numbers for starters.

        They don't own all of our debt but they do own the majority of it even over Japan if you keep adding in the Chinese territories and don't count just mainland.
        • edd17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Ok, you can add the Hong Kong share to that of China (although i am unsure of whether they are referring to only the central bank of each country or private banks in that country). But talking about other Asian countries being part of China doesn't make sense, they are different countries with different governments and central banks and China has no control over their banking and the debt owed by the US to these countries.
          • cdahlkvist, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Absolutely right. I was looking at the list of countries and in that "brain fart" mode I typed "Thailand". I meant to say Taiwan and Hong Kong.

            Taiwan is still ROC if I recall correctly as China is PRC, no?

            In any case, when you add Taiwan and Hong Kong you end up with just about a tie between Japan and China. Meanwhile there are "other" debts listed that could be small areas of China that we wouldn't typically think of.
      • seibed, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I am sure that most Thai people would be incredibly offended by your statement, and quite a few Taiwanese would be too.
    • defectDS, on 04/30/2008, -8/+10My "rich" family is felling the stress. My mom and dad make quite a lot, but supporting a family of six is killing them. Both of them work full time and yet there are days when can't even afford McDonalds.

      I'm not asking for your stories on how you live in a hole-in-the-wall apartment and eat the rats for breakfast, but I just want you to realize that we're not all relaxing and smoking cigars.
      • nbcaffeine, on 04/30/2008, -0/+12I live in a hole in the wall and eat rats for dinner. Roaches for breakfast. You must be rich, using the best rats for breakfast...
        • inigomntoya, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!
          • edd17, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.
          • inigomntoya, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3But you try and tell "Diggers" today that... and they won't believe ya'.
          • MrTea, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
      • sholt, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1FWIW, rats aren't very good for breakfast. Too gamey.
      • wendelgee2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1mmm....rats.
      • pojut, on 04/30/2008, -0/+12I am aware that this is a generalization, seeing as I know nothing about your family. /disclaimer

        This is a classic example of people living beyond their means. Leave BELOW your means. If you can afford a $600,000 house and are able to live comfortably (meaning all your bills are paid, you can catch a movie every now and then, and are able to save a little) don't buy the $600,000 house. Buy the $500,000 house. Put that money that you would normally have spent on the higher mortgage away in the back, or in fixed-interest bonds, or in some other safe place.

        Don't buy that $75,000 car. Buy that $35,000 car. Figure out what your payments would have been with the more expensive car, and pay that every month instead of what is on the bill. You car will be paid off MUCH faster, it will likely be less expensive to maintain that less expensive car, the insurance will be less...you get the idea.

        By doing this with all aspects of your life, you are still living well, but you aren't just comfortable...you are safe and saving.

        Granted, living beneath your means is kind of out of the question if you make minimum wage...this is supposed to apply more to the "rich" and "comfortable".

        Once again, I am aware that this is a generalization, seeing as I know nothing about your family. /disclaimer
        • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Well put, i hate nothing more than hearing about millionaires living million dollar homes, that just doesnt MAKE SENSE!!!!

          If you make a million a year, why does your house have to be so big and expensive?

          I think this is where America is a little out of touch. Just because you have money, that doesn't make you rich. If you spend/invest/save correctly, you will be WEALTHY which is so much more valuable in the end. But NO!, apparently if you make 1mil a year, you need that million dollar house.
          • mcquitty, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Until the estate tax comes and takes it all away...
        • Y0tsuya, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I think it depends on how you define millionaire. It has become fashionable to include the value of their house, so if their $300K house ballooned to $1M during the housing bubble, it could contribute $700K to their net worth. But as the property bubble deflates I expect their ranks to decrease.
          • pojut, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I personally would consider someone to be a millionare if they could write a check for one million dollars without it bouncing (or if they have a million or more in a retirement fund) I wouldn't include their house, car(s), or any assets other than what is in their bank account...but that's just me.
        • bluesatin, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Logic, on digg, it's more likely than you think!
      • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Don't have 6 kids then?
      • briankoenig03, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5You thinking that McDonald's is the epitome of cheap food probably accurately reflects the misconceptions that are keeping your "rich" family from being economically secure. Especially with a family of eight, fast food isn't especially cheap: 8 x $4.99 combo meal = $40.
        Want cheap, healthy food for a family of 8? Buy a box of pasta ($1), a bundle of carrots ($1), a 26 oz jar of tomato sauce ($1.99), 2lbs of chicken thighs and legs ($4.99), a head of garlic ($0.50), an onion ($0.75), and a couple lbs of apples, oranges, or whatever fruit is in season in your area and affordable. A tomato pasta and chicken dinner, with a cooked carrots side dish and a fruit dessert. 1/4 the price of that "cheap" McDonald's meal and much much much healthier for you and your family.
        I know I went overly in depth, but there are probably many circumstances where your family is spending money they don't need to. Sit down with your parents, look at your weekly expenditures, and I'm sure you will find many excesses that you can replace with better, cheaper alternatives.
        • Bimmel, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0You obviously have never been to the supermarket.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 04/30/2008, -5/+5Since when have the wealthy gotten tax cuts geared specifically toward them? That's what I want to know.
      • stretch611, on 04/30/2008, -8/+3The Bush tax cut in Mid-2001.
        The capital gain and dividend cut in 2003.
        I you want to go further back, Reagan lowered the top tax rate back in the 80's.

        You may argue that these affected everyone, but the people that saved the most were the top 5%.

        (I remember the tax cut in 2001 saved me that whole $20/month. WOW!! /sarcasm)
        • floorman56, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7The capital gain and dividend cut in 2003.
          Do you own stock? You got it too.
          The Bush tax cut in Mid-2001
          You know that increased the amount of money the goverment got because more people were working?
          • stretch611, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1The capital gains tax. Yes, that affected me. I save a few dollars, a few hundred actually. But the people that it really affected are the people that own thousands and hundreds of thousands of shares of stock, i.e. the rich elite.
            As for more people working, that is just wrong. If Bush was not re-elected, he was in danger of being the first president in decades have a term with a net job loss.
      • DisposableMike, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3Where have you been the last 8 years (and the 20 years before that, really)? Special interests and niche populations are the entire purpose of the tax cuts. The middle class gets it in the rear-end from both parties.
      • zacharytelschow, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3The rich have recently gotten tax cuts after the government initially was taxing the hell out of them. How would you feel if the government was taking 50 cents of every dollar you made?
        • Antwan718, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1If I was making 1 million a year I wouldn't care. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't WANT that but, a person making 1 million can easily afford a 300k house and a 40K car. Its when the people making 1 million a year are in a pissing contest with their neighbors making 1.1 million a year that articles like this are written.
    • doctechnical, on 04/30/2008, -7/+12It's a crying shame that we're only squeezing 50%+ of the total income revenue from the top 5% of earners.
      Keep whacking the big tax payers more and more, and you'll have fewer and fewer of them. Who's going to pay the bill when the top earners move to a more tax-friendly country and take thei wealth with them?
      • Terr01, on 04/30/2008, -4/+2Statistical source, plz.
        • Terr01, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Hrm. Lots of buries.
          No, I'm serious, how can we quantatize "rich flight" ?

          Why didn't they all flee back when rates were much higher? If they did, did they come back? If they didn't, why would they do it today?
      • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6The then empowered middle class. If you don't maintain a good balance between the middle class and the "rich people," you'll find that contempt will rise to a fever pitch. Most of the crime that comes out of impoverished urban areas is because of a get or get taken from mentality, which honestly, is the most pervasive and destructive part of human nature. I don't believe in default entitlement, but I do believe that a hard working poor person should have a bit of silvery lining in their clouds. My mom worked her ass off after my abusive father left the picture to feed my brother and sister, and they subsided on Ramen for a long time while she worked for the medical insurance industry, who beats the middle class over the head with false promises of security and piece of mind.
      • pintomp3, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3if the top 5% are paying 50% of the tax while having 59% of the wealth, they are getting of pretty easy.

        "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealt ...
    • EarlOfLade, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6Quite frankly, the article is *****.
      The current economic situation has no impact on me. Whether a gallon gas costs $4 or $10, is for me no problem. Whether it costs $50 for a dinner on a restaurant or $200 doesn't mean a thing.
      I have no debt, plenty invested long term in oil and gas, most of it, investments from the 80's and 80's and they continue to grow. Each pay period at work, I transfer a large chunk into investments. There is no crunch for us.
      And I think taxes are way too low, it should be increased to pay off the US national debt.
      • PhilliesBlunt, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Dugg for being honest about the reality of being loaded.
      • keenfrenzy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I believe you to be lying, because anyone who is economically wise and financially sound knows that increasing taxes will never pay off the national debt. It never has.

        Stop reckless spending, cut wasteful government programs, let people keep their money so that it circulates back into the economy end re-energizes the US in the world market. Then stop cutting interest rates and devaluing our nearly worthless dollar.

        Once we stop printing money that we don't have and we strengthen our economy to compete globally, we can actually have a chance at paying off that debt.
      • zacharytelschow, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3You, and others, have it all wrong. The answers isn't tax more, the answer is frivolously spend LESS.
      • dafragsta, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Wait until your non-gold backed investments fall on their face in the global market and gets eaten up by inflation. Then, you will be knocked off of a very high horse and the fall is going to kill you like all those millionaires in 1929 that took a flying leap or put a gun barrel in their mouth because they couldn't possibly live as "poor people."
      • mdnttoker, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Is that you Mr. Buffet?
    • Treoinmypocket, on 04/30/2008, -1/+17FTA: "Tellingly, about 19 percent of the people surveyed do not consider themselves wealthy, even though they have, on average, $3 million to invest and earn at least $270,000 a year."

      No *****. People earning $270,000 a year are WORKING their asses off and are NOT rich. People who "feel" rich are people who don't have to work and hence aren't earning a living but instead are living off their earnings.

      People who make $200,000 a year are business owners most of the time. Like the heating and air guy, homebuilder, local doctor, etc. Then there are salespeople who typically work 60 to 80 hr weeks.

      None of these people can let up for a second or that income will dry-up like blood in the noonday sun. The media & politicians paint people in this category as some kind of fat-cats but that's *****. More than likekly that's the guy you work for whose busint his hump to make sure you have a job and you get your paycheck regular...
      • EclipseGSX, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Wow, that's a ***** generalization. I know plenty of people in the finance & banking industry that are making that kind of money. Hell, I know a lot of high-level DBAs and programmers that make $150-$200/hr. Sure, they work hard, as they well should, but they're not the 80 hour a week slaves you paint them to be.

        If you have $3M to invest, even in a down economy you can make $120K a year off just the interest on that money. That's more than most people make in a year -- in ***** interest. So please... cry me a river for these folks. They're the same ones that benefit off every economic downturn anyway.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 04/30/2008, -0/+260-80 referred to salespeople if you reread what i said.

          The people who have that to invest earned it by working hard and I'm not asking you to cry a river. I'm saying these people are working for a living and not sitting around eating bon-bons. Small business provedides 70% of the jobs in this country and most small business owners are making just over $200,000.

          I for one am glad to live in a country where u can make money and improve your life by working hard. Are we supposed to feel guilty about becoming successful?
  • louiebaur, on 04/30/2008, -15/+10Everybody is getting squeezed!
    • Mustard911, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5And it's only just started. The trouble hasn't even hit the fan yet.

      The good people will burn for the money traders, and the policies to distribute wealth from working nations to those with no order.
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3I'm predicting that the vast majority of millionaires over the next 10 years are pushed below the poverty line as the the top %1 percent with 99% of the wealth become the top .01% with 99.9% of the wealth.
      • mcquitty, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1And how did you reach that prediction?
        • relic180, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Because I'm miss Cleo, reincarnated
    • chaoswings, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7How much do you want to bet that a millionaire said "Even millionaires are feeling the economic squeeze, I don ’t even feel wealthy." while giving the interview to a reporter on his private jumbo jet on his way to a five-star hotel in Hawaii
    • freezeout, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6it's a real tragedy. some millionaires have had to downgrade from 2 Swedish Au pairs to just 1 Mexican nanny :(
    • CedEx, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Taxes are taxes, if we have to pay them that's fine, but for *****'s sake, at least spend the tax wisely, and not piss it all over the place.
  • GrandmaSheila, on 04/30/2008, -18/+124They're always crying poor, as they suck the marrow from the bones of the nation. Booo ***** hooo.
    • ptheroux, on 04/30/2008, -22/+18The fact that someone else is successful does not make you worse off.
      • msk275, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8The fact that someone else is worse off does not make you successful.
        • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2But does the fact that someone else is worse off, make you worse off?
          • PeppermintPig, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3It suggests a trend. If your employer is worse off, then that effects you in some way, typically negatively.
          • ptheroux, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Good question. Often it does yes. For example, if you have a business and all of a sudden half your customers lose their jobs, they are going to have less money to spend on your products, so it hurts your business. Or, if you are a consumer and half the oil refineries or orange crop or whatever are destroyed, it hurts those businesses but also hurts you by making prices go up.
          • doctechnical, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Add this to the equation: not many people are employed by the poor.
      • wedges, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4yes, it can. cheney is making a boatload off Halliburton in Iraq. i would say this whole situation is making us all worse off with spending and debt while he gets more and more money.
        • ptheroux, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Sure, if the government steals money from taxpayers, they can give it to Halliburton or other corporations and make those folks well-off. That is corporatism, and is evil. It is not the free market. In the free market, businesses can only make money by selling products people want, not by using government to take the money from taxpayers. If you want less corporatism, the only solution is to cut taxes and spending and return to a constitutional form of government so the government has less resources to mismanage.
      • Nougat, on 04/30/2008, -4/+7The hell it doesn't. The ownership and executive classes take income simply from owning or managing - they deserve some amount of profit for the risk they're taking with their own monies, but the profits that are being taken are way out of line. The productivity of the employees, then, is not being fairly compensated, in order to divert that money into the excess profits of the owners and execs.

        Were the owners compensated fairly, there would be more money available to increase employee wages and build the company to create new jobs.

        Yes, someone else being better iff is making me worse off, as I am an employee and the ownership of my company puts much more of the company's money into their own pockets than is reasonable.
        • Digger1218, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Then buy stock and vote at the annual stockholder meeting. Until then, you're just a whiny bitch on an internet site.
          • Nougat, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Not the point. The point is that the ownership class fractionally enslaves the working class by undercompensating everyone. How would my joining the ownership class make that right?
          • Digger1218, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2The fact is that it isn't wrong to own the means of production. In fact its best to have more people in the ownership class to create more jobs for relatively fewer workers. Thats what makes wages rise. The supply and demand of labor. Lots of jobs with relatively fewer workers necessitates a rise in wages.
          • Nougat, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1And if the owners weren't pocketing so much of the profits for themselves, then the company would be able to use that capital to expand and create more of those jobs. Next?
          • Digger1218, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Again, if you're that worked up about it, buy stock and vote, or start your own company. The proletariat isn't rising up anytime soon comrade.
        • mcquitty, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1And who exactly should decide what investments people should make and how much return on investment is appropriate? Is it the government? Is it you?

          Perhaps you would like additional government intervention? Perhaps the government should mandate that you can't buy a car for more than 10% of your annual salary? Where do these "rules" come in? And where do they stop?
      • roodammy44, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Learn about excess production and capital.
        If someone owns a factory and earns $100 for each hour that you work, do you get $100 back? No, you get the market rate for your labour, say $20.
        The difference between the $20 labour value and the $100 the owner makes is called profit. This is money the owner gets for no effort of their own.
        The system might be fairer if anyone could start a factory, however you need an initial investment called capital to build the factory which is only available to the already rich.

        By definition the fact that the factory owner is getting richer is making you worse off - the factory owner is making money by not paying you for your full production.
        • Digger1218, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3How do you think those terrible rich people got that way? Its called savings and wise investments. That produces capital which can then be used to start a business or a factory or whatever to produce more wealth.

          Would you rather the factory owner liquidate his assets and put all his money in a bank and thus employ nobody? Then the worker would get $0/hr for his labor.
          • roodammy44, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1To be honest, personally I think most people will be self employed in the future and be able to determine their self worth as automation gets rid of the need for capital for production in the knowledge economy.
            I wasn't calling the factory owner terrible - I happen to think Henry Ford has the right idea:

            "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

            The profits these days are far too high, it will lead to workers who cannot afford what they produce therefore shrinking the market and an elite upper class who control everything.
          • Digger1218, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Generally high profits are related to higher costs. The key number to look at is Gross Margin. Anyone who looks at record profits without seeing the whole picture needs to learn a bit more about corporate finance.
        • mcquitty, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Yes. You never get paid what you are worth if you work for someone else.

          But, you have severely flawed logic. It is not the factory owner that holds the worker down. It is the worker that holds his fellow worker down. If your work requires no skill, then you have a large competition pool. If you have a specialty skill, something that is not available to every person on the market, you will drive up your salary.

          You will not, however, make what you deserve, because there would be noone to pay for you if the owner couldn't make a profit.

          Wealth is created by using resources to create value to others.

          You also assume that every business requires large sums of capital. This is also flawed logic. Otherwise companies like Apple and HP, which started in garages, could never have gotten off the ground. There's also venture capital money.

          So, rant all you'd like, but if you want to earn money, you typically have two choices: Work for someone or work for yourself. There's risk in either decision.
          • roodammy44, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Those are very good points. I'm glad we're all learning :-)
        • Narcism, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1This is severely flawed. Are you forgetting about something called "overhead"? The secretary isn't getting billed out at $100. The company mechanic isn't getting billed out at $100. The equipment that you use isn't free. The building you're working in isn't free. The building isn't exempt from paying property taxes or rent. Your materials weren't free.

          Oh, did the guy making $20 go through the effort of pitching to clients and getting the contracts?

          ....
    • bulletproofbra, on 04/30/2008, -7/+13Agreed, my heart bleeds for them. Where did I put that tiny violin?
      • Scheissen, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2bleeding heart liberal
      • HeroicLife, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2If it weren't for the self-made men who made America wealthy, you'd still be a starving peasant.
    • carlvjack, on 04/30/2008, -5/+6Yes that's it they have more money because they are leeching off of you, not that they might have invested more, more educated and made some sacrifices and took chances or nothing.
      • chaoswings, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2No one is disputing that they quite possibly worked hard to get where they are. But they should not have the nerve to say that their life has become difficult for them because of economic throwbacks.
        • blackinthmiddle, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4Why can't they? It's all relative. Many can say the same thing about you and me. Do you think the average family living, I don't know, in a trailer home thinks a family in the North East making $200K a year has the right to complain? If you're a family making $200K a year, I think (last time I checked) you're in the top 3% of earners in this country. However, talk to families making this much money and they'll tell you the same thing the family making $40K a year will; it's harder to get by in this economy than it was, say five years ago.
          • chaoswings, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Being a millionaire is a totally different bracket. You have a VAST surplus of cash. This is not your average upscale family this is the guy who bought a jumbo jet last spring because he didn't like riding in a commercial airplane with everyone else. When you hit the 7 or 8 digit mark it's a whole different world.
          • logan074, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2You do know that you do not have to make 1 million dollars a year to be a millionaire right? My dad has over 1 million in various investment accounts but I have never seen this jumbo jet of his.
          • chuckDontSurf, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Jumbo jet?? Let me guess, millionaires light cigars with $100 bills, right? Do yourself a favor and read "The Millionaire Next Door." Well, just read the first half, anyway; the second half gets a little repetitive.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Crying poor? It's not like they're lobbying congress or anything; they answered questions in a survey.
    • roberto_deneero, on 04/30/2008, -0/+6I pitty those who blame the wealthy for taking risk and succeeding. The rich are feeling the pain we all are because they own businesses we spend money at. We don't spend money, they feel it every bit as much if not more since they tend to have more investments at stake. Not all rich people are bad. Don't take your anger at Bush and Big Oil out on everyone. Blame yourself for voting for this asshat...TWICE.
      • chuckDontSurf, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3"Not all rich people are bad. "
        You don't understand--this is digg. The "rich" have all inherited their wealth, wealth which was achieved and maintained through shady dealings and political maneuvering. Each month they leave the comfort of their fully-staffed mansions and fly their private jets to the Bahamas to get together to discuss ways to suppress the poor and middle class.
    • HeroicLife, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3If it weren't for the self-made men who made America wealthy, you'd still be a starving peasant.
  • jgambleii, on 04/30/2008, -8/+72Bah... cry me a river.
    • leerayIG88, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I like peeing in a river. Aahhhh...the cycle of life.
    • Caviarmy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0Will SOMEONE please think of the millionaires?!?!
      • HeroicLife, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1If it weren't for the self-made men who made America wealthy, you'd still be a starving peasant.
  • reuscel, on 04/30/2008, -6/+73What will they tell their maids?
    • rinote, on 04/30/2008, -1/+17"No mas trabajo, lo siento."
    • msk275, on 04/30/2008, -1/+18Get an abortion, I can't afford an illegitimate son right now.
    • didoubleg, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Pague corte
    • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4I heard that lemon Pledge is made from the tears of maids.
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Did you also know that Visine is made from the tears of gypsies?
    • wezman2, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3They'll have to lay them off. That's one more of the working class poor out of a job.
    • ralphthemagi, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3"Work for less, or I'll call the INS."
  • Narcism, on 04/30/2008, -5/+89Well isn't life ***** difficult.
  • macjaeh, on 04/30/2008, -5/+65Forgive me for not tearing up.
    • tillerman00, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1(blows nose) How. . .how can you not be tearing up? Have you no soul, sir? I just sent for another box of ***** Kleenex! Just. . . just think of all the poor millionaires out there with their lear jets gathering dust, their impressive collections of antique sports cars stowed away in their four-car garages for the entire . . . summer (breaks down inconsolably)
  • SnapETom, on 04/30/2008, -5/+132When I read the headline and summary, I thought this was an Onion article.
  • TheGuin, on 04/30/2008, -6/+55Why do I not feel sorry for them?
    • PeppermintPig, on 04/30/2008, -5/+14Just a postulation: Perhaps you hate rich people, but secretly want to be one yourself? Or perhaps you think everyone should pay their 'fair share'??
      • halleyscomet, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6The interest on their investments is still several times my annual salary. When someone whose sock budget exceeds my yearly income pisses and moans about not being "wealthy" my reaction is "Cry me a river you jerk." I don;t hate them, I just have no sympathy for someone whose economic "woes" leave them with a house so big, my home would be the garage.
    • didoubleg, on 04/30/2008, -1/+11because they have more money then you....lots more
  • rinote, on 04/30/2008, -6/+33Yeah, let's feel sorry for the millionares. /sarc
  • alpha19, on 04/30/2008, -16/+4And I don't "feel" the poor economy personally... so lets all go dance around the water fountain... woopdie doo.
  • zadadka, on 04/30/2008, -13/+12For us common wo/men, it's kinda nice to hear that the rich get poorer, for a change...
    • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -1/+9Yeah...it might initially seem nice to see your boss start crying poor...until you're up for a raise, that is.
  • Stevo23, on 04/30/2008, -8/+121They've had to start lighting their cigars with $50s instead of $100s, these are tough times for everyone.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 04/30/2008, -16/+10Millionaires are rich because they don't blow their money like poor people do. You've got your stereotypes backwards.
      • chaoswings, on 04/30/2008, -2/+14What about those that were born rich? You can bet they aren't careful with their money. There are many riches to rags stories.
      • Adamande, on 04/30/2008, -3/+8The upper class doesn't change as much as you seem to think. Quite a few of the families who are rich today have been rich for generations. They are also powerful, inheriting high positions in government or the private sector, and as a consequence they are able to tip the market in their favor. If you look at the current development in the US, the gap between rich and poor is increasing and the middle class is shrinking. An indication that the exploitation of the lower classes by the upper classes has gone too far, and society is slowly slipping back into feudal-mode.
      • KSUdesigner, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5They don't blow their money like poor people do? Sorry but I consider buying million dollar homes and high end vehicles to be blowing money. Nobody needs a million dollar home. Nobody. If you're buying things you don't need then you are blowing money.
        • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Buying real estate is considered to be an investment. Buying $20 worth of scratch cards every day is a waste of money (most rich people don't bother).
          • mcquitty, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1The lottery is defined as "A self imposed tax on the poor".


      • mxmj, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Did you read the article? They are living well beyond their means. If you are making $270k/year+ and you are having a hard time, you are doing something wrong.
    • Schweppes7T4, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2you know, i always said if i ever won the lotto i'd light something on fire with a $100 bill, just to say i had.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Good Lord, I think just about everyone on this thread needs to read "The Millionaire Next Door."
      @Adamande: millionaires are not filthy rich; they're not the ones hob-nobbing with politicians and are secretly pulling the strings of society behind closed doors. Example, a guy who owns a carpet-cleaning business and lives in a house in the suburbs can easily be a millionaire.
      @KSUdesigner : I think you'd find that most millionaires don't have million dollar homes. That's how they got to be millionaires.

      Somebody mentioned digg hating the rich. The irony is that any decently-paid tech worker can easily become a millionaire within his/her lifetime. Although I do admit, you won't get their by buying million dollar homes and lighting cigars with $100 bills.
  • diggduggDOOM, on 04/30/2008, -8/+17It's so difficult being wealthy. Boo-frickity-hoo...
  • o0adam0o, on 04/30/2008, -7/+9Awwww how sad :(

    /sarcasm
  • mrdeathgod, on 04/30/2008, -12/+15At first I thought this was going to be an Onion article....
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -3/+5You're about 7 comments too late.
      • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Looks like I was also a comment late...
  • r1y23, on 04/30/2008, -6/+14Jeeze I hear some of them even had to wait to gold plate their private jets a extra month. Jesus, we are in a recession
  • DrDragun, on 04/30/2008, -5/+55Good Lord, they might have to downgrade from a Lexus to a Toyota. It's the same thing but WITHOUT LEATHER. The SHAME!!!!

    Yeah the house flippers are going to get burned, but I don't really have any sympathy. One of the profiles on CNN the other day was a woman who went from $80k salary to collecting unemployment benefits. Are you kidding? I'm paying taxes for unemployment benefits for someone who was making 80k for 10 years and just blew all her money recklessly?
    • wrxpert, on 04/30/2008, -4/+5More like downgrade from a Bentley to a BMW. How are we going to fight this tragedy.
    • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7Was she a single mother? 80k isn't that much, especially depending where you live, let alone if it's for the whole family.
      • Stevo23, on 04/30/2008, -8/+580k isn't that much? What the ***** are you smoking? Where do you live? On your own private island?
        • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Tell me how much 80k is when you have a house and a few kids. And student loans. And property taxes (depending on area these can be upwards of $7000/year for a somewhat modest home). And car payments.
        • jgzman, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6If 80K is not enough to buy a house, then I suggest you not buy a house. This advice would have saved America a great deal of trouble a few years back.
          • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3That's barely related to what is being discussed. It was implied that 80k was enough to live an extravagant lifestyle while stockpiling huge sums of cash. Anyone who has experience with the housing market in many areas of the US and/or has children knows that this is completely false.
        • Rivetgeek, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4I make 6 figures and I can tell you that living in a big city like LA or New York, 6 figures is middle class. Making minimum wage you live in a ***** apartment with 3-4 roomates to help with rent.
          • Stevo23, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Here's a clue: Don't live in LA or NY!
        • bemenaker, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3In LA, or NY, or SF, yeah, 80K isn't that much, but here in Cincinnati, 80K is a pretty nice living.
        • Stevo23, on 04/30/2008, -1/+280k is about twice the median income in the United States. If being twice as rich as the average person "isn't that much" then you've got pretty damn high standards. If you're whining about how high the cost of living near you is, all I have to say is MOVE SOMEPLACE CHEAPER.
        • jbcsee, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4But then we wouldn't make that much. Personally I make six figures. I own a 15 yr old Saturn, live in a crappy one-bedroom apartment, and can't justify driving my car because of the cost of gas. That and it's more environmentally viable to ride a bike anyway.

          Now if I where to move to someplace cheaper I just wouldn't be able to find a job, outside major metropolitan areas there are not many Software Engineering jobs, I've looked many times. I am not moving into an area that has one firm doing software development, it's too much of a risk for me. Unless there are fifteen or twenty companies I can work at then the job market is not secure enough.

          So in summary, your MOVE SOMEPLACE CHEAPER comment is stupid. No intelligent person would make that mistake. While real purchasing power might go up, it is actually unlikely based on salary differences in the mid-west, but we would also be giving up security.
          • Stevo23, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1This is a terrible argument. Not all cities with software development industry have the same insanely inflated costs of living as San Francisco or New York. In fact, crazy real-estate costs are a big reason WHY software firms have moved to places like Virginia (in the DC exurbs) and outside Atlanta. The IT industry is uniquely UN-tied to physical location. If you think it's necessary for your career to live someplace really expensive, then fine, but that doesn't make you "not rich".
      • logan074, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I don't get this many of the people I know make over 100,000 a year and they are not hurting but they are most definitely not living it up on an island. If you have a family that gets you a fairly nice house in Minn.
        • mxmj, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3100k/year is more than enough for a family of 4 if you manage your finances. The problem is, people in general are obsessed with being wealthy. They want everyone around them to know that they have money and spend more than they should on luxuries (cars, houses, clothes, watches, eating out etc)
          • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2100/year for 4? So $25k/person...doesn't sound so extravagent does it now..? The people driving a Lexus or a Bentley are bringing in way more than $100k/year per household.
          • jbcsee, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Ummm...I am single and I make more then 100k/yr, I am barely comfortable. I doubt I will be able to safely retire at 65 given the current market trends and what it is doing to my portfolio. In any case I don't own a house, my car is 15 years old and I can't afford extravagant vacations.

            I budget under $200/mo for food and about the same for entertainment (which doesn't get far when your dating). The rest goes to student loans, 401k and bills. I am luck to save $4-5k a year and that is if I don't have any major issues during the year.
          • mxmj, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I love it when people ignore the comment I reply to and go off on stupid tangents. There should have been a line break after my first sentence.
            More than enough does not mean rich. It means necessities plus a modest entertainment/luxuries budget. I didn't say anything about Bentleys or Lexus's (which by the way are in EXTREMELY different price ranges)
            jbcsee: so you are spending 4-5k each month (after taxes) on your student loans, 401k ,and bills? That does not sound like you have been managing your finances to me, or at least you didn't in the past and are paying for it now.
    • Shawshanksr, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5millionaires dont have a lexus and a toyota. anyone can afford a toyota...
    • stretch611, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7Actually, an 80K salary will not make a person a millionaire until after many years of saving. That is just middle class. 80k is actually an attainable computer professional salary and those people can be put out of a job for a long time thanks to companies moving work overseas. Even with savings, it is only a matter of time before they are out of money also.
    • serpentor, on 04/30/2008, -0/+11Yes that's how unemployment works, it's not need-based. I was laid off once from a job earning $100k, I collected unemployment like everyone else. It's not like other forms of social welfare, everyone is entitled to it if they're laid off, regardless of what they previously earned.
      • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -3/+9Your higher income tax also paid significantly more into unemployment, don't forget.
    • msbc, on 04/30/2008, -0/+11Unemployment benefits are not paid from taxes, they're paid from an "unemployment insurance" fund that companies pay into.
    • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7She's perfectly entitled to those benefits as they're coming from a fund that companies pay into and that she paid a larger portion into due to her higher income. Also, let's assume she has saved let's say $300k for her retirement over those 10 years, she should blow that before collecting money she is perfectly entitled to?
    • drmangrum, on 04/30/2008, -1/+14Spoken like a college student that has no idea what living in the real world is like. If you're single, 80k is a good number. If you're the sole provider for a family, not so much.
      Let's do some math shall we: 80k is a little over 6500 a month.
      Mortgage: $1200
      car: $450
      taxes: $1500 ( and that's being conservative.)
      groceries: $1600 ( family of 4, and that's not being extravagant)
      gas: $160
      insurances (home/car/etc): $250
      HOA: $60

      That's $5200. This isnt counting incidentals like car maintenance, clothing for kids, entertainment, retirement funds, etc.

      WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD!
      • o0joshua0o, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5As someone with 4 dependents, I wish I could digg you up 100 times.
      • Screwy1138, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I make roughly 80k. I pay almost exactly 1/3 of that in income taxes to federal, state, and local. And you left out student loans and general health costs.
      • jtiger12, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Dugg, B/C I have chosen to live my life WITHOUT CHILDREN, and make over 80K
      • Y0tsuya, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Don't forget 401K contributions unless you like living off social security after you retire.
      • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I have to add that a mortgage at 1200 is mildly undervalued in and around most major metropolitan cities, unless you're talking about a shed in the backyard of another house next to a toxic waste dump and a freeway.
      • kebwi, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2I have no serious disagreement with you here, but I would suggest that you bought too expensive a car. Don't buy a brand new car and don't buy anything fancy. My most recent car (and I keep them a long time), was bought five years old for $5500. It's clean and runs without any trouble. Also, in theory it ought to get good mileage because it is small, but I live in Seattle and there just too many damn hills here, so I can't seem to do well on the tank, but aside from that, $450 is too much for a car. Buy it outright for a few thousand and spend $0 a month. That's 0% interest btw 'cause no loan 'n all.

        Just sayin'.

        Cheers!
        • drmangrum, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1450 is too much for YOU. Not everyone is willing to purchase a 5 year old vehicle. Assuming average mileage, a 5 year old car should has anywhere from 45-62k miles. Not everyone is willing to take the gamble that such a vehicle will continue to run with minimal maintenance for another 5 years.

          Also, not everyone is in a position to pay cash for a car. Nor is paying cash always the most economical. We're arguing what the average family has to pay, not what they should pay.
        • ManoWar, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2yea really when you can take on a 30,000 loan for a new one. Don't be a wanker you can save cash and only use cash for a nice near new car. Sorry you should not be driving a BMW if you have 4 kids to raise. Grow up
      • DrDragun, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Fair argument for someone heading a household on 80k vs someone living single on 80k. If your argument is in specific numbers, however, let's not make selective exclusions. For example, where is the child support x3 in your monthly invoice? Also, please restrain the condescending attitude. Your point is made, however... someone who chooses to have 3 children will struggle more.
        • drmangrum, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Who said anything about 3 children, most of those figures are for 2, and that's about the average. If you're going to make stupid comment, prepare for a fair answer. Learn more about the world before making a fool of yourself.
          • DrDragun, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2quote=drmangrum "groceries: $1600 ( family of 4, and that's not being extravagant)"

            get your story straight. also whether it is 2 or 3 you completely excluded child support.
          • go5go, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Child support is not guaranteed...
    • Quaterni0n, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3So true.

      The higher the salary, the higher the expenses. A lot of people live beyond their means though, by trying to keep up with the Joneses. Cars are the biggest money pit of them all. You pay $500 a month for 5-7 years to own it, then it's old and worthless (cars depreciate like a bitch), so you throw it away and go buy another one. To save money, we have one good reliable family car and I use an old clunker (paid for in cash) to get my ass to work everyday.

      Even with $100K salary, I'm barely saving any money besides the 401K.
  • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -0/+44Quite.

    *puffs pipe*
    • meruru, on 04/30/2008, -0/+16Excuse me sir you forgot your top hat and monocle
      • Nougat, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Let me get my jodhpurs and elephant gun.
    • Matteos, on 04/30/2008, -0/+8Would you have any Grey Poupon?
    • MrESaulved, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5You best pass that pipe, rich or not.
    • logicalriot, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Caruthers. Oh Caruthers. Please pour me some more pinot noir.
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3win
    • AustinMandi, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I was thinking Stewie - "indeed"...**bubble bubble**
  • 5xSTUN, on 04/30/2008, -10/+87Actually, millionaires aren't the ones who piss me off. It's the billionaires that we need to really stick it to. I mean, a talented medical doctor can become a millionaire, so can a successful roofing contractor. But to become a billionaire means tapping into the old-boys corporate circle jerk and stepping on a lot of people's faces on the way up. No-one becomes a billionaire without doing a lot of lying, cheating, stealing, evading taxes, destroying lives and subverting democracy.
    • CircleFusion, on 04/30/2008, -2/+17Except for some lucky people who sold (or built) a dot com for billions...and Oprah.
    • relic180, on 04/30/2008, -3/+11Except Bruce Wayne.
    • NCg8r, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3A wise man once said "You have to get rich in the dark."
      • MrESaulved, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6A wiser man once said, "Behind every great fortune is an even greater crime".
        • rockefeller2, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3The wisest man once said, "He who falls asleep with itchy butt, wake up with stinky finger."
          • 5xSTUN, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3But there was a wise man that even HE would go to that said, "People who live in glass houses dress in basement."
        • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1Actually a wiser man filmed the whole thing and put it on youtube and is now a millionaire.
        • floorman56, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1What crime did the google guys do? WOZ? Michael Moore? You Tube? Oprah ?
          • 5xSTUN, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Oprah? Oh, don't get me started.
          • spacecheese, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Filmmaker Michael Moore has a small net worth in comparison of maybe $100 million tops, for the record. not sure why he's listed in your rant..
      • michael43, on 04/30/2008, -0/+10A stupid man said "I wanna be President Daddy", and now he is.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+15Digg loves to hate the rich. The simple fact is that without these large corporations, life would be a lot more difficult for everybody. Unless of course you can manufacture your own computer processors and circuit boards, or build your own car from scratch (as well as machine the parts for it and mine the ore yourself).
      • Screwy1138, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3billionaires tend to hire a lot of people too. and give to charities.
    • zacharytelschow, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1You can't get rich on the level? And why not? There's no way you honestly believe that.
  • jab9990, on 04/30/2008, -3/+9I can't wait until they start jumping out windows. I'll be popping a bottle of cheap champagne I've been saving.
    • mxmj, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2They are too rich to jump out of windows to kill themselves. They will probably jump out of their private jets.
  • jxfallout, on 04/30/2008, -2/+19But...But...who's going to buy the $300,000 watch that doesn't tell time?!?!?!
    http://digg.com/odd_stuff/The_300_000_Watch_That_D ...
    • boomernet, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0I think the guy who came up with that watch was the greatest con man in history.

      "Let's see, what is the most pointless thing I can come up with to separate inherited wealth from its steward..."
      • Surefly, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1He was a con man, now he's 'King of the world'.
        /groan
  • thebigbradwolf, on 04/30/2008, -1/+14It's easier to be "optimistic" when you're worrying about driving an SUV (instead of a corvette), and having to let the gardener go; rather than if you'll be able to get to work next week, or eat tonight.
  • FREETHINKER2008, on 04/30/2008, -3/+14Boo hoo, I can't afford to heat my pool.
  • sleepyjjk, on 04/30/2008, -2/+11Those asses. I think they should all turn into the millionaire who found happiness by working at Starbucks.
  • deathweaver108, on 04/30/2008, -0/+12In the words of Patrick Ewing: "Sure, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too."
    • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Truth. While everyone is joking about the rich not being able to afford excessively expensive cars and watches lots of hard working people's jobs are on the line.
  • atomicrobot, on 04/30/2008, -2/+22What a bunch of dicks.

    I make slightly above the median american household income by myself, and I live comfortably and happily. What the hell are these douchebags complaining about?

  • boomernet, on 04/30/2008, -1/+8let them eat cake?
  • TidusX, on 04/30/2008, -0/+13So how about we switch spots then, because I would much rather be rich in an economic squeeze than to be poor in one.
  • stix213, on 04/30/2008, -0/+13On the positive, now that millionaires are hurting too maybe something will actually be done to help out the economy.
    • AustinMandi, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Oh god, don't say that! No telling what kind of effed up legislation Congress will come up with to ease their financial situation while squeezing the hell outta the rest of us.
  • fakesinatra, on 04/30/2008, -4/+9boo

    *****

    hoo
  • pogfreak, on 04/30/2008, -6/+1*****
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2how do you post a completely blank comment? It won't let me do that. It requires a period or at least some sort of character.
      • mxmj, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I tried, couldn't do it and now need to write something here.. i have a feeling it is some bit of code or something that digg recognizes but doesn't allow to be displayed.
      • onetimer, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4I *think* it has something to do with the " < " character being recognized as a tag.
        • skiltonian, on 04/30/2008, -4/+0Onetimer would look great in a Volkswagen ashtray!
      • onetimer, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3*****
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1*****
  • anchorman, on 04/30/2008, -3/+6Poor, poor millionaires. My heart goes out to them.
  • headzoo, on 04/30/2008, -3/+10So now they have to buy last year's BMW instead of the newest model. Oh wahhh.
  • twoboxen, on 04/30/2008, -0/+24This article reminds me of the South Park where the artists were starving because of music piracy.

    <butchered_quote>
    Will Smith's daughter is crying! She can't get a new pony for at least a couple hours because YOU had to download that song!
    </butchered_quote>

    priceless... also, someone find the actual quote. too lazy.
    • BaseballGuyCAA, on 04/30/2008, -0/+12Detective: This is the home of Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica. [they approach a bush] Look. There's Lars now, sitting by his pool. [he's seen sitting on the edge of a chaise longue, his face in his hands, softly sobbing]
      Kyle: What's the matter with him?
      Detective: This month he was hoping to have a gold-plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it. [a close-up of Lars sobbing] Come. There's more. [leads them away. Next seen is a small airport at night] Here's Britney Spears' private jet. Notice anything? [a shot of Britney boarding a plane, then stopping to look at it before entering] Britney used to have a Gulfstream IV. Now she's had to sell it and get a Gulfstream III because people like you chose to download her music for free. [Britney gives a heavy sigh and goes inside.] The Gulfstream III doesn't even have a remote control for its surround-sound DVD system. Still think downloading music for free is no big deal?
      Kyle: We... didn't realize what we were doing, eh...
      Detective: That is the folly of man. Now look in this window. [they are at another mansion, and they look inside a picture window] Here you see the loving family of Master P. [He's shown tossing a basketball to his wife while his kid tries to catch it] Next week is his son's birthday and, all he's ever wanted was an island in French Polynesia. [his mom lowers the ball and gives it to the boy, who smiles, picks it up and drops it. It rolls away and he goes after it]
      Kyle: So, he's gonna get it, right?
      Detective: I see an island without an owner. If things keep going the way they are, the child will not get his tropical paradise.
      Stan: [apologetically] We're sorry! We'll, we'll never download music for free again!
      Detective: [somberly, dramatically] Man must learn to think of these horrible outcomes before he acts selfishly or else... I fear... recording artists will be forever doomed to a life of only semi-luxury.
    • stonebone4, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Not a big deal? NOT A BIG DEAL?!
  • cl0r0x70, on 04/30/2008, -2/+14Your local small business owner is likely a millionaire, when you total his assets. But he probably lives in a decent home in a decent neighborhood. He drives a decent -- but not extravagant -- car.
    Inflation has made a lot of people millionaires on paper. But they're not rich.
    The truth is that "millionaire" doesn't mean "wealthy" anymore.


    • Stevo23, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7Try reading the damn article: "The Fidelity Millionaire Outlook, a survey of 1,000 people with at least $1 million in assets ***to invest***, found that you don’t have to be a laid-off worker in a rust belt state to have a negative view of the nation’s economy."
      "to invest" = not already tied up in other assets. These people are rich as ***** relative to most of us.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Take your valium, Stevo! No need to blow a gasket!
    • cl0r0x70, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3I did read the article. How about you learn some simple money management.

      Investment capital != liquid capital. If you're investing the money as a source of income, you can't just spend that money, because then you lose that source of income.
      • NoCt1, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4You should look at it more. That is investment capital meaning they have it there for investments. They have multiple accounts. One is an investment account. As Mine. It doesnt have near a million in it.. maybe if i went to the penny count in it.. if that.. But they have a million in total going to invest. They have plenty of money set aside. You can not use money invested to purchase while it is invested. Thats the reason why its INVESTMENT CAPITAL. Money set aside to invest.. Not your total amount you have. Christ Im only 21 and I understand that.
      • stretch611, on 04/30/2008, -0/+11 million in investment capital. Even a lousy 5% interest gives them $50,000 a year to live off of without losing any capital. The average worker makes less than that and survives. No they will not be able to live their same lifestyle on $50k, but they will not starve or lose everything because they can't make a mortgage payment. They do not have the problems of the middle class no matter how much they think they do.
    • pintomp3, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1true. millionaire is still upper-middle class to rich. wealthy is when you have enough to live just off the interest or investments without eating into the capital. that point probably starts around 100 million.
    • catalysis, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3I'm sorry but if you have more than 1 million dollars in net assets, then you are wealthy. $1M is still a ***** of money, even with inflation. Most normal people are lucky to have a few thousand dollars, liquid or illiquid, and a frugal person could live off $1M without ever having to work again.
      • cl0r0x70, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1A frugal person might be able to live off of 1 Million dollars, but not forever.

        If they put it into something volatile (i.e. stocks) then there will be periods of time where you make nothing (or actually lose money.)

        If you put it into something more risk-averse, like a 4% savings vehicle, and live off the interest, then you face two problems:
        1) $40,000 won't be enough to live on in 20 years.
        2) $1,000,000 won't be enough to retire on when you get old in 40 years.
  • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -7/+8Things will be better in the next year because Bush will be out of office.
    • Mindzai, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6I'd doubt that.
      • NoCt1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+8true. Its more than just bush that did this. . There are several things that led up to this.
        • ileftfark, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2You guys have no idea how the economy works. The President is given the "econo-wand" at inauguration, and he/she has the responsibility to wave it when things are tough. Bush is obviously not using his econo-wand. Or his brain.
          • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1he is using the econo wand, its called the "war on terror"
        • PhillyMJS, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3@ileftfark:
          "Bush is obviously not using... ...his brain."

          Why should he start now, with only 9 months left in office?
    • floorman56, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Oh and when the tax rate goes back up ? ..That's better?
      Better keep that $600 the gov is sending you ... They will ask for it back next year ...oh and the interest.
      • bemenaker, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4Just how exactly are we supposed to pay off the 500 BILLION we borrowed from China to pay for blowing up a country that never attacked us? Or pay of any of the rest of the deficit, which was at ZERO, in 2000?
      • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I'd rather have higher tax rates with actual value to the dollar then what we have now.
    • PhillyMJS, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Eight years of Bush and his cronies running this country into the ground will not be magically undone on January 20. It will take years to repair all the damage to the economy, the country's reputation in the world, etc...
      • Jsmuli2, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1It's a step in the right direction, which is BETTER than what it was.
  • noodlez, on 04/30/2008, -5/+1reminds me of this news video from the onion: http://tinyurl.com/2zvhax
  • jhails, on 04/30/2008, -5/+7Where is Chairman Mao when you need him?
  • plarp, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5maybe the FED can implement some of the wellfare programs they have for business to also help out the rich
  • mecharabbit, on 04/30/2008, -1/+10It's true. This morning, I saw a group of millionaires in front of the Home Depot waiting for contractors to give them work.
  • Zlorp, on 04/30/2008, -2/+7awwwwwwwwww pooooooor millionaires. my heart goes out to you all. no really, it must suck having to finance something when you're used to throwing cash at everything.
    • keenfrenzy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I think that is part of the reason they are millionaires; they wait until they can pay cash for it, while you finance it and pay needless interest to the bank.
  • zastone, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4The research says people who have at least $1 million in assets to invest - so the $1 mil isn't even the money they use to live or discretionary income!
  • atariman, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6Boo f'in hoo

  • stretch611, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6OMG, Hopefully there will be enough greeter positions at WalMart so that they won't go broke in retirement.
  • Ratteler, on 04/30/2008, -4/+12Stop. Just STOP! If I cry in my Ramen Noodles (The only "food" I can afford), it'll make them more salty.
    As soon as society collapses, you ***** are going to be the shredded "pork" in my Ramen.

    http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/butche ...
  • VegasKill, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Boo-*****-hoo
  • coldpockets, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8Insert sarcastic comment about millionaires being forced to accept slightly less extreme version of ridiculous luxury.
    • ravage86, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Is that a request? Alright, here goes:

      Poor millionaires, now they'll only be able to get 6 vacation homes.
  • rmxz, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Perhaps they'll suffer foreclosures and I'll be able to afford one of their houses. :-)

    Seriously - it seems the best thing for "affordable housing" would be if the foreclosures badly crash the housing market.

    PS: Yes, the article's true, some millionaires are suffering. I have one .com acquaintance who saw his stock go from 20 million down to 1.something million. I still don't think that's too sad since he's still up 1 mil or so from before the bubble. And indeed he had to sell the very nice house he was in for a while.
  • enclaved, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I'd like to donate the last $10.17 in my bank account to these guys. Their plight is one that we can all understand, and as human being I am moved by it.
    • ColonelJessup, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Wow! What a coincidence!I had $10.19 in my checking account last Friday! Then I withdrew 10 dollars, and bought a sixer of coors light, and 3 double cheeseburgers from McD's! I still had enough left over to play 2 games of pinball at the laundromat!

      Tough times? Me thinks........... no..................
    • NoCt1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I will throw in a nice little 7.85 .. Christ Gas is what is killing me.. 60 dollars a tank.. I am ok with paying 40.. but 20 extra fill is pretty big when i look at my statement.. 20+20+20+20 extra chews the extra amount in my account.. I had to start drinking Cheaper vodka.. and cut back on the smokeage (actually.. i stopped driving as much and bummed a ride to not cut that back :))
      • enclaved, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Your financial advice has inspired me to find budgetary cuts so that I may divert more of my substantial assets towards smokeage.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.