Languish.org

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/108460/how-your-income-stacks-up?mod=career-salary_negotiation

QuoteWhere do you rank as a taxpayer? You may not feel rich earning $35,000 a year, but you're in the top half of taxpayers. Make $70,000, and you earn more than 75 percent of fellow taxpayers.

Even as the Great Recession ends, we know the economic wounds it inflicted will take years to heal. The national unemployment rate has breached 10 percent, and unemployment is higher than 12 percent in California and above 15 percent in Michigan. A new study from the Department of Agriculture found that nearly 50 million Americans struggled at some point in 2008 to get enough to eat.

More than 40 million Americans are officially living in poverty. And you might be surprised at how little income it takes to not be considered poor by the federal government. For 2008, the poverty threshold for a single person under age 65 was an income of $11,201, or less than $1,000 a month. For a family of four, the threshold was $21,834. For a family of six, $28,769.

With that perspective, you may wonder just how your income stacks up against that of your fellow citizens. New statistics from the IRS provide an answer. The numbers here come from an analysis of 2007 tax returns, the most recent ones that have been studied.

The data show that an income of $32,879 or more puts you in the top half of taxpayers. Earning a bit more than twice that much -- $66,532 -- earns you a spot among the top 25 percent of all earners. You crack the elite top 10 percent if you earn more than $113,018.

And $410,096 buys top bragging rights: Earn that much or more and you're among the top 1 percent of all American earners.

Kiplinger has developed an online calculator to quickly show you -- based on your personal adjusted gross income -- into which income category you fall and, as a bonus, what percentage of the nation's tax burden is borne collectively by you and your fellow citizens who are in that income category. The following table shows the income categories and the percentage of income earned and tax burden paid by each category.

Not highly surprising. I've been arguing that here for a while. It's certain lawyers on this forum who don't believe they are part of an upper class....but I won't get that started again.  :shutup:

Lawyers may be rich, but they aren't really part of an "upper class."

I'm fairly certain my current income of $0 doesn't qualify as rich.  :blush:

Wahoo!  I am rich!

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2009, 11:26:42 PM
Lawyers may be rich, but they aren't really part of an "upper class."

I'm fairly certain my current income of $0 doesn't qualify as rich.  :blush:

Not necessarily.  Another measure is your net worth (total assets - total liabilities).

Quote from: Monoriu on December 29, 2009, 11:31:24 PM


Not necessarily.  Another measure is your net worth (total assets - total liabilities).

By those standards I deserve a bailout!

Is Katmai: too big to fail?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 01:04:39 AM
Is Katmai: too big to fail?

:lol:

Katmai, like Rudie, can't fail.

That's an interesting table. I just compared it to the German table and apparently our income spread isn't nearly as wide as that of America. While it is still reasonably close in the bottom 50 percent, the upper 50 percent in Germany earn way less than in America.

http://grundgesetz.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/einkommenspiramide.jpg
(Left is percentage of population in that income group, right is percentage of total income tax paid by that group)

In Poland, I'm apparently in the top 1%. But it's Poland.  :homestar:

Nice little calculator for UK household after-tax incomes and where that puts you relative to other households :

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

Quote from: Josephus on December 29, 2009, 11:05:40 PM
Not highly surprising. I've been arguing that here for a while. It's certain lawyers on this forum who don't believe they are part of an upper class....but I won't get that started again.  :shutup:

Upper class to me is the "idly rich" - people who could stop working (or indeed don't work) but could maintain their luxurious lifestyle. People, like lawyers etc., who earn a lot of money but need to work in order to maintain their lifestyle are "upper middle class".

I reckon you need a title to be upper class, or at least be a member of the landed gentry. They are a very small group in the UK nowadays.

I've found the table for HK. 

http://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/ppr/are08_09.htm

(PDF file in the last row, Schedule 5)

Table is a little misleading because, in HK, if you pay any salary tax at all, you're already well within the top 50%. 

Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2009, 03:26:01 AM
In Poland, I'm apparently in the top 1%. But it's Poland.  :homestar:

Still, that's gotta be something :worthy:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 03:27:15 AM
Nice little calculator for UK household after-tax incomes and where that puts you relative to other households :

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

What's a realistic number for council tax?

I pay £1,570 a year for council tax.....that's levied on the house you understand. A small flat might pay £800, a huge mansion £3,000; it is quite a regressive tax.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 03:27:15 AM
Nice little calculator for UK household after-tax incomes and where that puts you relative to other households :

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

I'm far higher than I should be on that :mellow:

Partly saved by sharing a flat and living in the second lowest council tax area in the country, but still  :blush:

Sheilbh, I just checked and it does default to a comparison between your household and other households of the same type. So it will be comparing you to other single households. Households with several members have higher incomes in general.

Having said that I'm always surprised by how many people are poor (and I mean working poor as well as state-dependent) and how many people are quite well-off. The comfortable "middle" turns out to be a rather small group.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2009, 11:26:42 PM
Lawyers may be rich, but they aren't really part of an "upper class."

Indeed.  If you have to work, you're not upper class.

QuoteI'm fairly certain my current income of $0 doesn't qualify as rich.  :blush:

Depends on how much accumulated wealth you have.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2009, 11:26:42 PM
Lawyers may be rich, but they aren't really part of an "upper class."

I'm fairly certain my current income of $0 doesn't qualify as rich.  :blush:

high income does not equal rich

rich people earn more off of the stuff they own than they do off of their personal labors

I know many rich people and the one truism about the truly wealthy is that they own things for a living--the rest of us (especially those that believe income equates to wealth) are all posers

Yup, people may be high income from what they do, but by and large (excluding rock stars, actors, athletes and the like) one is either rich from what one owns, or from who one knows.

Nah, rich is not synonymous with upper class. It is wholly dependent on how much money you have, not how you got it. Tiger Woods, Alex Rodriguez, Shaquille O'Neal, Tom Cruise- all rich. You may choose to draw the line at a different arbitrary amount of wealth, but anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
Nah, rich is not synonymous with upper class. It is wholly dependent on how much money you have, not how you got it. Tiger Woods, Alex Rodriguez, Shaquille O'Neal, Tom Cruise- all rich. You may choose to draw the line at a different arbitrary amount of wealth, but anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

$200,000 isn't nearly enough, unless one has a very low opinion of what constitutes adequate provisioning.

Thing about people who earn a lot from working is that they have to keep working. I'm a high earner myself, in the top 5% if I was in the US (can't find the Canadian equivalent), but I sure don't feel "rich" because I spend so much of my time slaving away at the office. Yet I cannot save enough as of yet to simply stop and live off of it (I could tomorrow if I was willing to live off of $200,000).

When I picture "rich" I picture a lifestyle more devoted to leasure.

I like how all the lawyers come rushing in and saying "we're not rich!"

:lol:

Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2009, 11:50:36 AM
I like how all the lawyers come rushing in and saying "we're not rich!"

:lol:

Would you like it better if we came rushing in to say that we are?  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 11:55:59 AM

Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2009, 11:50:36 AM
I like how all the lawyers come rushing in and saying "we're not rich!"

:lol:

Would you like it better if we came rushing in to say that we are?  :lol:

I just want you to be happy, and living in self denial isn't it Mal!

:P

Rich is relative. Depends where you live and other stuff. North American poor are extremely well-off by African standards, blah blah...

I agree that anyone who is working for their money doesn't really classify in my mind as wealthy. Working doesn't make you rich. Ownership does. You can't go from working--->rich. But you can go from working-->ownership--->more ownership-->rich. When you have an income in the top 1%, it shouldn't take you long to get to ownership if you're not stupid about money.

Someday I hope to be as well off as El jefe Anger. :ph34r:

I define "wealthy" as having enough assets that you can quit working if you wish and still maintain your habitual lifestyle, said lifestyle being at or above the "norm" for where you live.

It is possible to be wealthy without actually ahve a impressive amount of liquid capital, and it is possible to have a lot of income without being wealthy.

Why would anyone quit working?

Because we're lazy.

Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2009, 11:57:24 AM
I just want you to be happy, and living in self denial isn't it Mal!

:P

Oh, I don't deny myself a few treats and trinkets.  ;) But fact is that working all the time isn't the picture of the sort of lifestyle I think of when I think of "rich".

I think more of relaxing on a sailboat in the Carribian with a bunch of hott chicks* and a martini.

*note: insert sex object of choice here

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:24:10 PM


I think more of relaxing on a sailboat in the Carribian with a bunch of hott chicks* and a martini.

Sounds like my Brother's job*, and he ain't rich :P

Well the sailing the Caribbean part, not so much the martini and no idea about the hott chicks.

I'm middle class, with just a hint of old school white trash.  :homestar:

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
But fact is that working all the time isn't the picture of the sort of lifestyle I think of when I think of "rich".

My wealthiest clients would never stop working.  They really enjoy what they do.  Dreaming about not working has little to do with how much money one has a much more to do with the level of enjoyment one gets from their work.

Control has a lot to do with that enjoyment.  I like my work a lot more since I began controlled my own files.

And Jacob, check your PMs.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 12:45:36 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
But fact is that working all the time isn't the picture of the sort of lifestyle I think of when I think of "rich".

My wealthiest clients would never stop working.  They really enjoy what they do.  Dreaming about not working has little to do with how much money one has a much more to do with the level of enjoyment one gets from their work.

Control has a lot to do with that enjoyment.  I like my work a lot more since I began controlled my own files.

I do not hate the work, what I dislike is its all-consuming nature; even if I loved every minute of it, I'd still want a good balance, which is notoriously hard to achieve in this (or indeed any) profession. No amount of enjoyment of work is ever going to reconcile me to working so much. 

I'd probably be bored by a life of total leasure.

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:54:40 PM
I do not hate the work, what I dislike is its all-consuming nature; even if I loved every minute of it, I'd still want a good balance, which is notoriously hard to achieve in this (or indeed any) profession. No amount of enjoyment of work is ever going to reconcile me to working so much. 

I'd probably be bored by a life of total leasure.

If you controlled how much work you did and when you did it, it would not be all consuming. ;)

Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2009, 11:50:36 AM
I like how all the lawyers come rushing in and saying "we're not rich!"

:lol:

That's my point. They hold onto the myth that they are in the same class as, according to the OP, those that make $35,000/yr.

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:24:10 PM

Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2009, 11:57:24 AM
I just want you to be happy, and living in self denial isn't it Mal!

:P

Oh, I don't deny myself a few treats and trinkets.  ;) But fact is that working all the time isn't the picture of the sort of lifestyle I think of when I think of "rich".

I think more of relaxing on a sailboat in the Carribian with a bunch of hott chicks* and a martini.

*note: insert sex object of choice here

Can I come along with you some day, Malthus...I know some nice "Hott" chicks.

Stupid stats. My Brother would qualify for the top 10% earners but he's in debt up to his eyeballs, so not so "rich" really.

A lot of people earning between 30k and a few hundred share that situation. The so called middle class is now some kind of debtor's prison work-release program set up by bailed out banks and CC companies (who have no standards imposed on them whatsoever)

People in the top 1% sometimes share in the stupidity of debt, but some don't, just like the rest of us,

I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner? 

A student loan.

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

sure they could be. but you are assuming most people are smart enough and ungreedy enoiugh to even think about that. They aren't. :contract:

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 12:57:59 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:54:40 PM
I do not hate the work, what I dislike is its all-consuming nature; even if I loved every minute of it, I'd still want a good balance, which is notoriously hard to achieve in this (or indeed any) profession. No amount of enjoyment of work is ever going to reconcile me to working so much. 

I'd probably be bored by a life of total leasure.

If you controlled how much work you did and when you did it, it would not be all consuming. ;)

Ha! In theory.  :P I know lots of guys with their own firms. Not one of them works *less* than I. Indeed, most of 'em work *more*. Now they have all sorts of responsibilities to keep up. Sure they created those responsibilities themselves, but that makes them more pressing, not less.

I can't complain because of course we do it to ourselves. It's like owning a house. You want the house, you work for it, now it needs upkeep - still more work. Sure, you could let it fall apart, but it's *your* house, and who wants to live in a wreck?

I picture a really rich person as being one with the benefits but not necessarily the responsibilities. They have a house not because they worked their asses off to get one, but because they chose their parents wisely. They can keep it up because they have a fortune.

Ya I'm with Malthus on that. The truly rich are by definition: Idle.

Malthus is one of those unlucky souls known as the working rich. It's even worse than being a member of the working poor.

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

The problem is that the expectations of the "average" lifestyle cost more than the middle class can actually afford.

- Car
- Computer/TV/ Electronic gadgets
- Education for the kids
- Saving for retirement
- Most of all, a home

... cumulatively, the middle class assumes it should be able to have all that stuff when in fact it is (cumulatively) not really affordable on a middle class income, if you live in a big city at least.

Quote from: Fate on December 30, 2009, 01:15:52 PM
Malthus is one of those unlucky souls known as the working rich. It's even worse than being a member of the working poor.

Didn't you say at one point that you were going to med school?  :D

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 01:22:01 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 30, 2009, 01:15:52 PM
Malthus is one of those unlucky souls known as the working rich. It's even worse than being a member of the working poor.

Didn't you say at one point that you were going to med school?  :D

Yeah, I start in July. As a resident I will make less money per hour than a McDonalds worker. :weep:

Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 01:10:22 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner? 

A student loan.

Which should be paid off at some point...then do they become upper class?

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 01:20:43 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

The problem is that the expectations of the "average" lifestyle cost more than the middle class can actually afford.

- Car
- Computer/TV/ Electronic gadgets
- Education for the kids
- Saving for retirement
- Most of all, a home

... cumulatively, the middle class assumes it should be able to have all that stuff when in fact it is (cumulatively) not really affordable on a middle class income, if you live in a big city at least.

Right Malthus. But a guy making $40K also has all that you stated....kids, school, retirment, home. Is he still in the same class as the dude making $150K? We've had this argument before, I know.

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 01:11:10 PM
I picture a really rich person as being one with the benefits but not necessarily the responsibilities. They have a house not because they worked their asses off to get one, but because they chose their parents wisely. They can keep it up because they have a fortune.

But to be fair, Malthus, you make a decent living. Your fantasy of a rich person is probably a lot different than a guy who makes, say, $30K/yr. His fantasy is of a rich person is probably being able to go on vacation once a year, not have to borrow money when he needs new snow tires and not having to tell his kids that Santa won't be bringing them the PS3.

I think richness is a very relative thing. To most people in Somalia, even I am rich. And lawyers are kings.

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

one does not downsize in boats; one trades up

So what's the adjective to describe someone like Malthus who earns way above average, but is not "rich"?

Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2009, 01:58:18 PM
So what's the adjective to describe someone like Malthus who earns way above average, but is not "rich"?

If he were an American, it would be "upper middle class."

Quote from: Fate on December 30, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
Yeah, I start in July. As a resident I will make less money per hour than a McDonalds worker. :weep:

Then your future is to end up "working rich". At least, if you choose a good field.

Chez Hakluyt we live way below our means; we are about 8 years away from dependency on paid employment.

(Yes, I'm a sort of profligate western Mono  ;))

It never ceases to surprise me how many people are willing to sacrifice free time for more pointless consumer goods  :huh:

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 01:20:43 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

The problem is that the expectations of the "average" lifestyle cost more than the middle class can actually afford.

- Car
- Computer/TV/ Electronic gadgets
- Education for the kids
- Saving for retirement
- Most of all, a home

... cumulatively, the middle class assumes it should be able to have all that stuff when in fact it is (cumulatively) not really affordable on a middle class income, if you live in a big city at least.

I agree.  I felt the most rich when I was earning about 30,000 dollars a year.  Back then I had a very low rent and lots of time (and it seemed money) on my hands.

Now I have a lot more expenses that seem to have grown at a greater percentage then my income.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
It never ceases to surprise me how many people are willing to sacrifice free time for more pointless consumer goods  :huh:

There is a happy middle ground.  I have a very nice standard of living and when I sell this house in 15 or so years (depending on what the kids do) and downsize, I will have a very nice retirement.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 02:49:51 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
It never ceases to surprise me how many people are willing to sacrifice free time for more pointless consumer goods  :huh:

There is a happy middle ground.  I have a very nice standard of living and when I sell this house in 15 or so years (depending on what the kids do) and downsize, I will have a very nice retirement.

Stop expecting the boys to sign a fat baseball contract!

:P

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
Chez Hakluyt we live way below our means; we are about 8 years away from dependency on paid employment.

(Yes, I'm a sort of profligate western Mono  ;))

It never ceases to surprise me how many people are willing to sacrifice free time for more pointless consumer goods  :huh:

But everybody looks so much better in HD, i needs it!

Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2009, 02:56:35 PM
Stop expecting the boys to sign a fat baseball contract!

:P

But then I will have to come up with a backup plan which I refuse to do. :mad:

We will see how well R does with football - that may become a viable back up plan.   :D

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:24:10 PM*note: insert sex object of choice here

That's what you call your penis?  Weird.

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:28:23 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 01:20:43 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner?  A larger home? A nicer car? All of which can be downgraded to manage that debt.

The problem is that the expectations of the "average" lifestyle cost more than the middle class can actually afford.

- Car
- Computer/TV/ Electronic gadgets
- Education for the kids
- Saving for retirement
- Most of all, a home

... cumulatively, the middle class assumes it should be able to have all that stuff when in fact it is (cumulatively) not really affordable on a middle class income, if you live in a big city at least.

Right Malthus. But a guy making $40K also has all that you stated....kids, school, retirment, home. Is he still in the same class as the dude making $150K? We've had this argument before, I know.

The problem is that a guy making $40,000 really can't afford all that stuff. Not in the big city at any rate.

These are reasonably conservative figures for Toronto:

Rent/mortgage - at least $1,200 a month say $14,400 a year

Car - insurance,  gas, repairs, lease (or sinking fund for purchase) - say $6000 a year;

... that's more than half his income gone, and we haven't looked at education, food, clothing, entertainment, etc.; let alone any savings for retirement.

It is no wonder middle class types tend to be in debt.

If you have a house rather than rent, your expenses multiply. Property taxes, heating bills, repairs ...

The issue is not whether the guy earning $150K is the same class as the guy earning $40K; the former can afford all that middle-class stuff and the latter really can't; neither are "rich"; the former is however likely to feel that he *ought* to be able to afford that middle class stuff and the latter is likely to feel he *ought* to be able to afford luxuries (like owning their own house), leading to debt troubles in both cases ...

Quote from: Jacob on December 30, 2009, 03:06:26 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 12:24:10 PM*note: insert sex object of choice here

That's what you call your penis?  Weird.

*Your* sex object of choice is *my* penis?

Very flattering I'm sure, but I'm married.  :)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 03:27:15 AM
Nice little calculator for UK household after-tax incomes and where that puts you relative to other households :

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

Jeebus. I'm in the 8th decile group despite being broke and living with a bloke paid (poorly) by the hour. I feel so much better :)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:41 AM
I pay £1,570 a year for council tax.....that's levied on the house you understand. A small flat might pay £800, a huge mansion £3,000; it is quite a regressive tax.

I pay more than that for my flat  :glare:

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 03:10:22 PM*Your* sex object of choice is *my* penis?

Objection.  When the evidence was introduced the word "your" was not there.  I direct your attention to the original post.  As they say in court "I call shenanigans!"

Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2009, 01:58:18 PM
So what's the adjective to describe someone like Malthus who earns way above average, but is not "rich"?

Rich

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 30, 2009, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2009, 01:58:18 PM
So what's the adjective to describe someone like Malthus who earns way above average, but is not "rich"?

Rich

More accurately,

Rich but not as Rich as he would like to be.

Quote from: Brazen on December 30, 2009, 03:21:07 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:41 AM
I pay £1,570 a year for council tax.....that's levied on the house you understand. A small flat might pay £800, a huge mansion £3,000; it is quite a regressive tax.

I pay more than that for my flat  :glare:

Yes, that's because the government recognises that we are hardworking salt-of-the-earth Northerners whereas you are a privileged rich Tory southerner  :lol:

The algorithms and formulae that central govt use to hand out subsidies are shamelessly fixed IMO

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 03:27:27 PM

More accurately,

Rich but not as Rich as he would like to be.

"Comfortable."

"Financially secure."

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 02:49:51 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
It never ceases to surprise me how many people are willing to sacrifice free time for more pointless consumer goods  :huh:

There is a happy middle ground.  I have a very nice standard of living and when I sell this house in 15 or so years (depending on what the kids do) and downsize, I will have a very nice retirement.

Yes indeed, I think the reality of when to downsize for us parental types is when the kids have completed University.

Until they are safely launched there are limitations to what a parent can do; which I think a lot of people assuage with eg.....nice car or whatever.

Quote from: Jacob on December 30, 2009, 03:21:49 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 03:10:22 PM*Your* sex object of choice is *my* penis?

Objection.  When the evidence was introduced the word "your" was not there.  I direct your attention to the original post.  As they say in court "I call shenanigans!"

Shenanigans?

So THATS what you call it. :D

Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 01:10:22 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner? 

A student loan.

:showoff:  I get *paid* about $300/month to study law at Stockholm University, one of the hardest-to-get-into educations in the country (though Hortlund once argued law at Uppsala is better and Stockholm is only more popular because it's Stockholm, but I can only assume he studied at Uppsala). I will accumulate some student loans, but they are subsidised and very beneficial as the interest is not much more than inflation.

And when you graduate 50%? of your income will belong to big brother.  :rolleyes:

Probably more than 50%, but I don't mind. Big brother paid my education, after all. I like my big brother.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 04:16:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 01:10:22 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 01:07:16 PM
I disagree. What sort of debt does a $100K earner have compared to a $30K earner? 

A student loan.

:showoff:  I get *paid* about $300/month to study law at Stockholm University, one of the hardest-to-get-into educations in the country (though Hortlund once argued law at Uppsala is better and Stockholm is only more popular because it's Stockholm, but I can only assume he studied at Uppsala). I will accumulate some student loans, but they are subsidised and very beneficial as the interest is not much more than inflation.

Woah, that's a great deal.

I thought I had it good in Canada, when I could by working all summer pay tuition on law school for the year (sadly, tuition has tripled since and I don't think that is possible any more).

What are the financial prospects like for a lawyer in Sweden?

I might add that the Swedish system is immensely preferrable, for the following reasons:

1) It is more meritocratic, because admission is based only on merits, and in no way on how much money your parents have (which I personally find quite disgusting).

2) In the American system, the educated are made slaves to the free market, because they accumulate large student loans they can only pay back by making money in the free market. There is no free market of ideas for educated americans; at the very least, it is subject to very strong incentives and punishments.

3) I assume it's more cost-efficient from a societal stand-point. I would be interested in a comparison of years of education/capita and cost of education/capita between Sweden and America.

4) At the very least the quality of education isn't worse. The best education in a country of 9 million will never be as good as the best education in a country of 300 million, but I think we do alright for our size, and I would be very interested in hearing an argument of why our system leads to lower quality of education - I've never heard such an argument, and I don't think it could be made.

The system works the same way for students of law and students of other subjects (including stuff in no way beneficial to society like feminist studies etc, I'd be first in line to propose some harder regulations :glare:)

I'll dig up some stats for you on prospects of lawyers Malthus

OK been checking out the official statistics of the Central Bureau of Statistics (which Slargos would tell you can not be trusted, I might warn).

According to the report "Work force barometer of 2009", students of law is the group of students in highest demand by employers. (Link in Swedish: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/UF0505_2009A01_BR_AM78BR0905.pdf (p. 9, "Störst har efterfrågan varit på jurister." / "Lawyers have been in highest demand")

A lawyer in Stockholm, aged 37 years, with 9 years experience, earns in average 42.224 kr/month (70 644.9744 U.S. dollars/year, at current exchange rate. This is before tax.)

What are Sweden's immigration policies and what are the job prospects for an old-fashioned print journalist who only speaks English?  :)

SCB is reasonably reliable as long as you're not expecting truth about our precious lottery winnings in which case even lying through your teeth isn't able to make the situation look good.

With 42.224 SEK/month, living in Oscar congragation in Stockholm, which is where I live, and not being a member of the Swedish church, which I am not, one would pay:

Resultat: Du får 29 330 kr i månaden efter skatt
Kommunalskatt: 7 197 kr
Landstingsskatt: 4 982 kr
(Jobbavdrag: -1 422 kr)
Statlig skatt: 2 108 kr
Kyrkoavgift: 29 kr
Total skattesats: 30,5%


In translation:

Result: 29 330 kr/month after tax
Communal tax: 7 197 kr
Landsting tax: 4 982 kr
(Work deduction: -1 422 kr)
State tax: 2 108 kr
Church fee: 29 kr
Total tax burden: 30,5%

The commune is the lowest level of societal organisation, the landsting is the mid-level and the state is the top level.

To this is added VAT, but the VAT is different for different things (at most 20-25%, but as low as 8% for books, for example).


I forgot to translate into dollars. 29 330 SEK is 4 089 USD. This is what you keep every month.

This is the distrubution of income, presented graphically:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F8436%2F41789726.png&hash=c492dc7f7a2ceb2ddad12b00f9c4af0604ae9337) (http://img709.imageshack.us/i/41789726.png/)

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 05:22:03 PM
What are Sweden's immigration policies and what are the job prospects for an old-fashioned print journalist who only speaks English?  :)

Are you white?

Would you be interested in work?

If the answer to any question is "yes" then I'm afraid you're gonna have a hard time immigrating legally.  :(

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 05:22:03 PM
What are Sweden's immigration policies and what are the job prospects for an old-fashioned print journalist who only speaks English?  :)

'


I'm not sure if there's any statistics to be found for journalists who only speaks english, but I know work prospects for journalists are poor in Sweden, as they are is in most places nowadays. :( Being a journalist is something I'd consider becoming, but I'd never go through the Stockholm school of journalism; a law degree would be better for me even if that's what I'd want to be. The competition is very fierce.

Quote from: Slargos on December 30, 2009, 05:25:36 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 05:22:03 PM
What are Sweden's immigration policies and what are the job prospects for an old-fashioned print journalist who only speaks English?  :)

Are you white?

Would you be interested in work?

If the answer to any question is "yes" then I'm afraid you're gonna have a hard time immigrating legally.  :(

I believe he's british, which is to say we share a common market and he could even study here for free if he'd like to

edit: I share your concerns for well-educated non-european immigrants though, we should make it a lot easier to let them in

I might add that not all the above statistics is from SCB (SCB doesn't provide nice graphical presentations, for example) - some of it is from random sites I've never visited before (but have no reason to believe to be biased)

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
OK been checking out the official statistics of the Central Bureau of Statistics (which Slargos would tell you can not be trusted, I might warn).

According to the report "Work force barometer of 2009", students of law is the group of students in highest demand by employers. (Link in Swedish: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/UF0505_2009A01_BR_AM78BR0905.pdf (p. 9, "Störst har efterfrågan varit på jurister." / "Lawyers have been in highest demand")

A lawyer in Stockholm, aged 37 years, with 9 years experience, earns in average 42.224 kr/month (70 644.9744 U.S. dollars/year, at current exchange rate. This is before tax.)

70K, with 9 years of work experience? In private practice?

Ouch!  :yucky:

Average for all lawyers.

A lawyer in a top Stockholm law firm (f.ex. Vinge or Mannheimer Swartling) would earn considerably more, even in an entry position.

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 05:22:03 PM
... what are the job prospects for an old-fashioned print journalist who only speaks English?  :)

I don't think the future job prospects for old fashioned print journalists will be very good in any web-savvy country.

The more important question is can you get us all laid if we move to Sweden.

I know many young women I could introduce you to. The rest is up to you. They'd probably consider you exotic as an american, and as long as you're not the stereotypical arrogant american tourist, you might have a good shot.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 06:03:44 PM
... as long as you're not the stereotypical arrogant american

Well, that leaves out half of Languish.  <_<

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:56:39 PM
Average for all lawyers.

Still a bit "ouch".

I might also add that if you're for example a defense lawyer you get paid, by the state, something like 4000 SEK even for a routine case that'll only take about an hour or two in court and very little extra work (and considerably more for larger cases).

edit: There is a shortage of defense lawyers, because it is felt they are not paid enough.

And of course the burden of student loans to be repaid is not very big

Quote from: citizen k on December 30, 2009, 06:09:27 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 06:03:44 PM
... as long as you're not the stereotypical arrogant american

Well, that leaves out half of Languish.  <_<

True enough  :lol:  Yi isn't, though.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 06:03:44 PM
I know many young women I could introduce you to. The rest is up to you. They'd probably consider you exotic as an american, and as long as you're not the stereotypical arrogant american tourist, you might have a good shot.

I'm buying my ticket as we speak.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 06:13:51 PM
And of course the burden of student loans to be repaid is not very big

Not a big deal in Canada. I had $0 in student loans, because I was able to make enough during the summer to pay tuition & lived at home (no doubt that would have been bad for my sex life if I hadn't already had a GF with her own place :D )

Tuition has gone up so much that is no longer possible, but there is still no need for truly crippling student loans.

I admit that I'm probably skewed in perspective working at a big Toronto firm, but $70K is what we offer articling students here. Getting free tuition is cold comfort if that is what one can expect to be earning in almost a decade - before tax.

OK probably a lot less than in North America, but still enough to live a nice, comfortable lifestyle. I would see no reason to complain with such a wage.

You also have to keep in mind there are less very wealthy people driving prices up at the exclusive end of the scale, when it comes to housing etc. Such a wage would allow you to live in a very nice part of Stockholm (and even with no income apart from what I get from my studies I live on Östermalm, which is the nicest part of central Stockholm - this is thanks to rent control on the apartment complex where I live; there are many problems with our system of rent control but at least it alleviates some of the effects of gentrification. There are rent-controlled apartments even on the nicest street in Stockholm, Strandvägen - many people do not know this).

Quote from: Slargos on December 30, 2009, 05:25:36 PM

Quote from: Josephus on December 30, 2009, 05:22:03 PM
What are Sweden's immigration policies and what are the job prospects for an old-fashioned print journalist who only speaks English?  :)

Are you white?

Would you be interested in work?

If the answer to any question is "yes" then I'm afraid you're gonna have a hard time immigrating legally.  :(

Oh.  :(

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 06:23:26 PM
OK probably a lot less than in North America, but still enough to live a nice, comfortable lifestyle. I would see no reason to complain with such a wage.

You also have to keep in mind there are less very wealthy people driving prices up at the exclusive end of the scale, when it comes to housing etc. Such a wage would allow you to live in a very nice part of Stockholm (and even without a very high income I live on Östermalm, which is the nicest part of central Stockholm, and I'm a student - this is thanks to rent control on the apartment complex where I live; there are many problems with our system of rent control but at least it alleviates some of the effects of gentrification. There are rent-controlled apartments even on the nicest street in Stockholm, Strandvägen - many people do not know this).

Heh that's a good point. Here in Toronto, a modest 3 bedroom house in a reasonable area costs a minimum of $500,000 - you'd be lucky to find that.  Indeed, 3 bedroom houses on my street (admitedly renovated)are now going for just under $1 million.

Cost of living is harsh here. 

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 06:09:52 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:56:39 PM
Average for all lawyers.

Still a bit "ouch".

Not that different from the US, actually, considering the DA and PD types dragging the average down.

http://w4.objektdata.se/pregen/216/OBJ21339_1007510216/listaBilder.htm?Gid=OBJ21339_1007510216


Current bid for this apartment in a very nice part of Stockholm is 4495000 SEK which is a little more than half of 1 million $. (and of course our housing is as over-valued as elsewhere, total "value" is 50% more than our GDP or something like that  :huh:)

edit: it is 94 m2 (1012 ft2)

edit 2: it is 627 313.21 U.S. dollars

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 06:23:26 PM
OK probably a lot less than in North America, but still enough to live a nice, comfortable lifestyle. I would see no reason to complain with such a wage.

You also have to keep in mind there are less very wealthy people driving prices up at the exclusive end of the scale, when it comes to housing etc. Such a wage would allow you to live in a very nice part of Stockholm (and even with no income apart from what I get from my studies I live on Östermalm, which is the nicest part of central Stockholm - this is thanks to rent control on the apartment complex where I live; there are many problems with our system of rent control but at least it alleviates some of the effects of gentrification. There are rent-controlled apartments even on the nicest street in Stockholm, Strandvägen - many people do not know this).

Yes thanks to that insipid rent control thing poor people living in Rinkeby pays the same rent or nearly so as rich people living in the most posh places in the inner city. And all that just so a few select people can howl how "equal" the system is. Pah...what was it Assar Lindbäck said...."In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing. Assar being known as a paragon for the rightist cause in Sweden eh?

I agree there are many problems with rent control. It's very strange people in Rinkeby should pay as much. Stockholm is hardly a bombed city, though  :lol:

I might add Assar said that in a different time, when we had a very different system of rent control, not very similar to the one we have now.

Oh, and it's not that the people in Rinkeby pay a lot - it's that I pay very little. And rent-controlled apartment buildings are becoming fewer and fewer as they are bought out by the people living there and made into owned housing.

Yeah now we instead have queues that are how long? Unless you can get your dad to pony up a couple of hundred grand to shove under the table for a decent spot to live or unless you are pals with the landlord. I know since I´ve been part of the abuse. Sucks for them that doesnt have my connections though....or should I say my fathers.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:10:35 PM
Oh, and it's not that the people in Rinkeby pay a lot - it's that I pay very little. And rent-controlled apartment buildings are becoming fewer and fewer as they are bought out by the people living there and made into owned housing.

And why arent there being built any new ones...(well apart from the fucking annoying NIMBYS that should be tossed of subway platform when the Red Line comes in)....rent control makes it unprofitable to build any new.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:02:33 PM
I might add that the Swedish system is immensely preferrable, for the following reasons:

1) It is more meritocratic, because admission is based only on merits, and in no way on how much money your parents have (which I personally find quite disgusting).

2) In the American system, the educated are made slaves to the free market, because they accumulate large student loans they can only pay back by making money in the free market. There is no free market of ideas for educated americans; at the very least, it is subject to very strong incentives and punishments.

3) I assume it's more cost-efficient from a societal stand-point. I would be interested in a comparison of years of education/capita and cost of education/capita between Sweden and America.

4) At the very least the quality of education isn't worse. The best education in a country of 9 million will never be as good as the best education in a country of 300 million, but I think we do alright for our size, and I would be very interested in hearing an argument of why our system leads to lower quality of education - I've never heard such an argument, and I don't think it could be made.

1) Do you really believe American universities (and particularly law schools) admit on the basis of how much a persons parents earn in income or are you just used to posting on the Paradox OT where this kind of silliness is accepted?

2) Were you on drugs when you posted this?  What the hell does being a slave to the free market mean?  Again, acceptable on the Paradox OT but you are going to have to do better then spout some meaningless jargon to make a point here.

3) Given the average income you say is available I would say you are going to be a slave to the State and I would be much more concerned about you then I am about our American friends

4) Actually, given the reasoning in your post, I have my doubts about the quality of the education you recieved.  Sounds to me like the State has you very well trained into thinking you actually have a good deal.

Yep, there are many problems and there is a lot of abuse. There are many problems with the system. I might add I'm renting my apartment in second-hand, while the first-hand contract owner is in the US working on a doctorate in neurobiology (which I understand should take 4 more years or something like that). While I don't think I'm abusing the system, it's true I wouldn't have been able to get it without connections.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 07:16:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:02:33 PM
I might add that the Swedish system is immensely preferrable, for the following reasons:

1) It is more meritocratic, because admission is based only on merits, and in no way on how much money your parents have (which I personally find quite disgusting).

2) In the American system, the educated are made slaves to the free market, because they accumulate large student loans they can only pay back by making money in the free market. There is no free market of ideas for educated americans; at the very least, it is subject to very strong incentives and punishments.

3) I assume it's more cost-efficient from a societal stand-point. I would be interested in a comparison of years of education/capita and cost of education/capita between Sweden and America.

4) At the very least the quality of education isn't worse. The best education in a country of 9 million will never be as good as the best education in a country of 300 million, but I think we do alright for our size, and I would be very interested in hearing an argument of why our system leads to lower quality of education - I've never heard such an argument, and I don't think it could be made.

1) Do you really believe American universities (and particularly law schools) admit on the basis of how much a persons parents earn in income or are you just used to posting on the Paradox OT where this kind of silliness is accepted?

2) Were you on drugs when you posted this?  What the hell does being a slave to the free market mean?  Again, acceptable on the Paradox OT but you are going to have to do better then spout some meaningless jargon to make a point here.

3) Given the average income you say is available I would say you are going to be a slave to the State and I would be much more concerned about you then I am about our American friends

4) Actually, given the reasoning in your post, I have my doubts about the quality of the education you recieved.  Sounds to me like the State has you very well trained into thinking you actually have a good deal.

1) I was not aware it was free to study law at top American universities. Or receive any higher education. I understand a powerful incentive to join the US army is to receive a paid education. Someone with rich parents would not need this.

2) Yes I was, I had a few beers. I still stand by my point though. I wouldn't characterize myself as drunk.

3 & 4) You don't have to worry about me. I'm happy with my system, and if Americans are happy with their system: we're all happy. What's the problem? I'm just presenting my honestly held opinion, and you've done nothing to change it.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:21:58 PM
3 & 4) You don't have to worry about me. I'm happy with my system, and if Americans are happy with their system: we're all happy. What's the problem? I'm just presenting my honestly held opinion, and you've done nothing to change it.

It's just bad form to present your honestly held opinion when it basically consists of denigrating another country/system without even bothering to be funny :)

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:16:53 PM
Yep, there are many problems and there is a lot of abuse. There are many problems with the system. I might add I'm renting my apartment in second-hand, while the first-hand contract owner is in the US working on a doctorate in neurobiology (which I understand should take 4 more years or something like that). While I don't think I'm abusing the system, it's true I wouldn't have been able to get it without connections.

Your a Stockholm lad aint you?

Think about those who come to study here and are from the other parts of the country....or even worse from out of the country. Didnt we have some sort of tent village a year back or so for students from abroad? Disgrace is what it is....

But never mind me. I´m just a tad bit bitter about being sick as a dog the day before new years. Looks like I wont make that party..... :mad:

This is Languish  :huh:  Americans here denigrate my system and europeans in general all the time. I wouldn't write something like that anywhere else.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:24:59 PM
This is Languish  :huh:

Yeah.  To be honest, though, I get the sense that you're reading through a filter of pre-judgements rather than things as they are.

QuoteAmericans here denigrate my system and europeans in general all the time. I wouldn't write something like that anywhere else.

But they're pulled up on them when they're wrong and many of them at least make it funny.

Edit:  Actually I'd say most Euro-denigration comes from self-loathing Euros on Languish.

Rent control is retarded and should be ended if people had any sense. And what the fuck is wrong with gentrification? I don't want to fucking live with poor people. In Sweden only losers are poor.

Quote from: Cecil on December 30, 2009, 07:24:44 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:16:53 PM
Yep, there are many problems and there is a lot of abuse. There are many problems with the system. I might add I'm renting my apartment in second-hand, while the first-hand contract owner is in the US working on a doctorate in neurobiology (which I understand should take 4 more years or something like that). While I don't think I'm abusing the system, it's true I wouldn't have been able to get it without connections.

Your a Stockholm lad aint you?

Think about those who come to study here and are from the other parts of the country....or even worse from out of the country. Didnt we have some sort of tent village a year back or so for students from abroad? Disgrace is what it is....

But never mind me. I´m just a tad bit bitter about being sick as a dog the day before new years. Looks like I wont make that party..... :mad:

Well, students from abroad, even those from countries outside the EU, receive the same subsidised student housing as everyone else in addition to free education. Which is why they come here in the first place. We are already very generous, perhaps too generous. I agree we should build more student housing, though.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2009, 07:16:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:02:33 PM
I might add that the Swedish system is immensely preferrable, for the following reasons:

1) It is more meritocratic, because admission is based only on merits, and in no way on how much money your parents have (which I personally find quite disgusting).

2) In the American system, the educated are made slaves to the free market, because they accumulate large student loans they can only pay back by making money in the free market. There is no free market of ideas for educated americans; at the very least, it is subject to very strong incentives and punishments.

3) I assume it's more cost-efficient from a societal stand-point. I would be interested in a comparison of years of education/capita and cost of education/capita between Sweden and America.

4) At the very least the quality of education isn't worse. The best education in a country of 9 million will never be as good as the best education in a country of 300 million, but I think we do alright for our size, and I would be very interested in hearing an argument of why our system leads to lower quality of education - I've never heard such an argument, and I don't think it could be made.

1) Do you really believe American universities (and particularly law schools) admit on the basis of how much a persons parents earn in income or are you just used to posting on the Paradox OT where this kind of silliness is accepted?

2) Were you on drugs when you posted this?  What the hell does being a slave to the free market mean?  Again, acceptable on the Paradox OT but you are going to have to do better then spout some meaningless jargon to make a point here.

3) Given the average income you say is available I would say you are going to be a slave to the State and I would be much more concerned about you then I am about our American friends

4) Actually, given the reasoning in your post, I have my doubts about the quality of the education you recieved.  Sounds to me like the State has you very well trained into thinking you actually have a good deal.

You would have a good time reading the "readers comments" when articles about the US are posted in our major mags.....

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:27:54 PM

Quote from: Cecil on December 30, 2009, 07:24:44 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:16:53 PM
Yep, there are many problems and there is a lot of abuse. There are many problems with the system. I might add I'm renting my apartment in second-hand, while the first-hand contract owner is in the US working on a doctorate in neurobiology (which I understand should take 4 more years or something like that). While I don't think I'm abusing the system, it's true I wouldn't have been able to get it without connections.

Your a Stockholm lad aint you?

Think about those who come to study here and are from the other parts of the country....or even worse from out of the country. Didnt we have some sort of tent village a year back or so for students from abroad? Disgrace is what it is....

But never mind me. I´m just a tad bit bitter about being sick as a dog the day before new years. Looks like I wont make that party..... :mad:

Well, students from abroad, even those from countries outside the EU, receive the same subsidised student housing as everyone else in addition to free education. Which is why they come here in the first place. We are already very generous, perhaps too generous. I agree we should build more student housing, though.

I´d prefer we ditched the free education part tbh if it ment we could get some better education going but knowing the wastrels at goverment level I already know that would be a futile thing.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2009, 07:26:57 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:24:59 PM
This is Languish  :huh:

Yeah.  To be honest, though, I get the sense that you're reading through a filter of pre-judgements rather than things as they are.

Maybe, but I'm always happy to change my opinion if I'm convinced I'm wrong.

QuoteAmericans here denigrate my system and europeans in general all the time. I wouldn't write something like that anywhere else.

But they're pulled up on them when they're wrong and many of them at least make it funny.

Edit:  Actually I'd say most Euro-denigration comes from self-loathing Euros on Languish.
[/quote]


Feel free to pull me up on it if I'm wrong, and yes, I know this is a very right-wing forum, and most Euros here are Euros who don't like the European welfare-states, for example - which runs the risk of Americans only hearing one side of the story from Europeans. While I might be frank, I write what I write in the interest of transatlantic understanding, and I don't think I have been rude by the standards of this forum.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:32:51 PM
I don't think I have been rude by the standards of this forum.

Then try harder FFS.

Cecil: I think article comments are retarded everywhere. I like our free education (but I could very well see it more restricted)

Something given has no value.

It can have

Can not.

Whatever

I won.

Yes, you did. Congratulations.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:41:28 PM
Yes, you did. Congratulations.

I'm touching myself with joy.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:34:57 PM
Cecil: I think article comments are retarded everywhere. I like our free education (but I could very well see it more restricted)

True but an alarming amount of people seem to think those soviet propaganda posters are some sort of gospel. And I concur on the second part.

I'm glad I helped spread joy in the world

Heh, I think people are stupid everywhere, but at least thanks to our free education, their stupidity is self-chosen.

(I might add I distrust Aftonbladet as any other thinking person)

 :lol: BTW, as for this: "Sounds to me like the State has you very well trained into thinking you actually have a good deal."

No doubt spoken by someone motivated by self-interest who can not imagine anyone else motivated by anything else. I'm quite aware the best deal I could get would probably be in a nights watch-man state, but that's not a state I'd like to live in anyway.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

No, you can't.  You need much more than US$1 million for that.  The one thing that will kill your plan is inflation.   

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 07:56:45 PM
:lol: BTW, as for this: "Sounds to me like the State has you very well trained into thinking you actually have a good deal."

No doubt spoken by someone motivated by self-interest who can not imagine anyone else motivated by anything else.

You should quit now.

OK, fine, whatever. I'll quit.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 08:24:40 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

No, you can't.  You need much more than US$1 million for that.  The one thing that will kill your plan is inflation.   

I have a fried who travelled through India for 5 months with a budget of a few hundred dollars/month, on the cheap but still comfortably. With a few hundred thousand dollars you can be among the idle rich in many countries.

(inflation could be guarded against in many ways, it wold be possible to put the money in gold or something)

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 08:44:24 PM
OK, fine, whatever. I'll quit.

You were on to something with admissions for children of the rich.  A scandalous percentage of students at top universities are "legacies" i.e. children of alumni.  It's not too much of a leap to think that donations to the schools factor into that.

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 05:55:19 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
OK been checking out the official statistics of the Central Bureau of Statistics (which Slargos would tell you can not be trusted, I might warn).

According to the report "Work force barometer of 2009", students of law is the group of students in highest demand by employers. (Link in Swedish: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/UF0505_2009A01_BR_AM78BR0905.pdf (p. 9, "Störst har efterfrågan varit på jurister." / "Lawyers have been in highest demand")

A lawyer in Stockholm, aged 37 years, with 9 years experience, earns in average 42.224 kr/month (70 644.9744 U.S. dollars/year, at current exchange rate. This is before tax.)

70K, with 9 years of work experience? In private practice?

Ouch!  :yucky:

Hey - I have 9 years of experience, and I don't make a heck of a lot more than that. :angry:

It seems to me that the key to the article is "earners". It implies wage-earning.

Because otherwise, $410,000 is simply ridiculous.

In fact, given the numbers presented by the site, it would seem that most Americans actually fare quite badly under "The American Way". I sometimes wonder if people really understand all the opportunities of Life.

Key to making money is to make your money generate more money, not to work yourself silly to get more money.

Also, you rely WAY too much on the stock market. Diversify your portfolio.

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Thing about people who earn a lot from working is that they have to keep working. I'm a high earner myself, in the top 5% if I was in the US (can't find the Canadian equivalent), but I sure don't feel "rich" because I spend so much of my time slaving away at the office. Yet I cannot save enough as of yet to simply stop and live off of it (I could tomorrow if I was willing to live off of $200,000).

Protip: usually, after your career's first 10 years you have enough to start buying things that can generate alternative sources of income. They can easily make you independent of your current job.

With that independence, you get a very big leverage in your firm, as your company will know you do not depend on them for your lifestyle, but instead that you are rather there because you like it.

What this translates to is basically that people will be a LOT nicer to you in the workplace and, most importantly, that you get to cut back on the overtime and can enjoy some relaxation.

Take my example: in Christmas and the New Year, I'm off all four days (Thursday-Friday-Saturday-Sunday). In theory, I should work in some of them. But I'm no longer financially dependent on my workplace, so I get them off because I want to. And the company is aware of the situation, so it prefers to make others pick up that work than risk annoying me.

And that's VERY good for one's quality of life.

Quote from: Malthus
When I picture "rich" I picture a lifestyle more devoted to leasure.

When I picture "rich" I picture giant manors where I can't see the end of the bathroom from the doorway, dozens of private jets (some with your private bedrooms), sexy french maids cleaning your mouths after delicious food served in crystal dishes, free travel to whatever country at any time with precisely zero hassle from customs (except a salute from the guards), being able to talk in front of the police about doing illegal things with basically no worries and, above all, being able to bend the banks to comply to one's wishes.

And after having experienced THAT firsthand, I'll never see myself as being "rich". The Rich are truly Rich. Everyone else is middle class and lives in a world of illusion.

Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2009, 08:54:52 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2009, 05:55:19 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 05:18:45 PM
OK been checking out the official statistics of the Central Bureau of Statistics (which Slargos would tell you can not be trusted, I might warn).

According to the report "Work force barometer of 2009", students of law is the group of students in highest demand by employers. (Link in Swedish: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/UF0505_2009A01_BR_AM78BR0905.pdf (p. 9, "Störst har efterfrågan varit på jurister." / "Lawyers have been in highest demand")

A lawyer in Stockholm, aged 37 years, with 9 years experience, earns in average 42.224 kr/month (70 644.9744 U.S. dollars/year, at current exchange rate. This is before tax.)

70K, with 9 years of work experience? In private practice?

Ouch!  :yucky:

Hey - I have 9 years of experience, and I don't make a heck of a lot more than that. :angry:

You also live in a communist slave state.

Quote from: Barrister on December 30, 2009, 08:54:52 PM
Hey - I have 9 years of experience, and I don't make a heck of a lot more than that. :angry:

exactly.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 08:24:40 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

No, you can't.  You need much more than US$1 million for that.  The one thing that will kill your plan is inflation.   

$1 million is plenty if you don't want luxuries.  That's already more than many people make in their entire lifetime.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 08:47:21 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 08:44:24 PM
OK, fine, whatever. I'll quit.

You were on to something with admissions for children of the rich.  A scandalous percentage of students at top universities are "legacies" i.e. children of alumni.  It's not too much of a leap to think that donations to the schools factor into that.

I might add similar things do occur in Sweden. The Stockholm School of Economics, one of few private institutions of higher education in Sweden, funded largely by donations from enterprise and wealthy individuals, has a very peculiar system of admission. They admit 275 students each term, 80% based on grades, 10% from the Swedish SAT (lower than any other place of higher learning, to my knowledge) and 10% on "special merits". The definition of "special merits" on their website is vague enough to include almost anything.

So if anyone was worried about the Swedish rich, they can stop worrying. The richest have found a way to get their kids into top universities here too (SSE is well regarded internationally, and many of their staff are among the committee handing out Nobel prizes in economics).



(I might add I don't *know* this is what is going on at SSE, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is - I'll ask some people I know who study there about it)

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 30, 2009, 09:02:44 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 08:24:40 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

No, you can't.  You need much more than US$1 million for that.  The one thing that will kill your plan is inflation.   

$1 million is plenty if you don't want luxuries.  That's already more than many people make in their entire lifetime.

Yes, $1 million can generate an inflation-adjusted $40,000 - $50,000 forever.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 08:46:53 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 08:24:40 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2009, 11:23:13 AM
anybody with even a couple hundred thousand in the bank *could* eat, drink, and be sheltered from the elements the rest of their life without working another day.

No, you can't.  You need much more than US$1 million for that.  The one thing that will kill your plan is inflation.   

I have a fried who travelled through India for 5 months with a budget of a few hundred dollars/month, on the cheap but still comfortably. With a few hundred thousand dollars you can be among the idle rich in many countries.

(inflation could be guarded against in many ways, it wold be possible to put the money in gold or something)

If you are 20-something, maybe you can travel through India for a few months on a low budget.  Try that when you are 70. 

You cannot just say "inflation could be guarded against".  The big question is HOW.  How?  I ask you.  "Gold is a hedge against inflation" is a myth.  Take a look at gold prices in the early 80s.  Then take a look at gold prices in the late 90s.  And finally see the inflation numbers between those years.  Gold prices actually dropped a lot between the 80s and 90s, while inflation went up. 

The only good hedge against inflation is a large, strong, well-diversified portfolio with holdings in bonds, stocks, and cash.  There is a huge amount of literature on this topic, and the general consensus is that you need a portfolio the size of 25 times your expected total annual expenditure to retire.  If you expect to spend US$50k a year, then your portfolio needs to be at least US$1.25 million large.  You may say, hey I don't need to spend US$50k a year.  Keep in mind that medical costs will go up when you retire, whether you like it or not.  And even that is no gurantee of success.  The more safety you want, the larger the portfolio needs to be.

I bury coffee cans full of confederate dollars in the yard.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 30, 2009, 09:10:05 PM
I bury coffee cans full of confederate dollars in the yard.

Forgot to log in sock Mew

There are many people who have purchased nice houses in poor countries where they have retired and don't have to spend a lot of money in living costs. Living costs from just living somewhere would be lower than the costs associated with travelling.

The value of gold might go up and down, as might the price of any commodity or stock or currency, but at the end of the day there is only so much gold in the world and people have always liked gold and probably always will, because it's shiny and nice to look at and makes good jewellery for example.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 09:14:20 PM
There are many people who have purchased nice houses in poor countries where they have retired and don't have to spend a lot of money in living costs. Living costs from just living somewhere would be lower than the costs associated with travelling.

The value of gold might go up and down, as might the price of any commodity or stock or currency, but at the end of the day there is only so much gold in the world and people have always liked gold and probably always will, because it's shiny and nice to look at and makes good jewellery for example.

Like I said, we are talking about retirement in your old age, not backpacking.  It is inevitable that the costs of living will be higher when you retire, medical costs alone will ensure that. 

The points you made are exact reasons why gold is not a good investment.  The value of an investment is determined by the discounted value of its future income stream.  Bonds and stocks have value because they generate interest and dividends respectively.  Guess what, gold generates negative value.  It has no income, while it incurs storage costs.  Industrial demand for gold is very limited (compared to platinum).  The demand for gold is determined by the mood of the world population.  Do you want to bet your retirement on that?  That is also why the value of gold is so volatile.  For retirement, stability is your friend, not volatility.  You want relatively stable assets that generate constant income streams, not something that sits in the bank vault and generates no income at all.  There is a good reason why most portfolios don't include gold, or only a very small percentage at best.  Gold stocks are considered some of the most risky ones out there. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 09:23:10 PM
Like I said, we are talking about retirement in your old age, not backpacking.  It is inevitable that the costs of living will be higher when you retire, medical costs alone will ensure that. 

He's not talking about backpacking (or rucksacking, as they say in his country).  He's talking about retiring to a low cost country.  Plenty of Americans do that right now in Central America and the Carribean.

Most people don't have near $1 million when they retire and they manage to survive

Well, I don't think gold will ever go out of fashion. Over history human means of production have changed fast, but human nature very slowly. The price might go up and down a lot in the short term, though, I don't doubt that, but I'd assume that the ups and downs are around the same base-line. As for literature on the subject, no one will pay for a book merely advising "invest in gold". As for medical costs, I'm pretty sure a Swede could jump on a plane home for free healtchare even if he no longer live and pay taxes here, strangely enough, but I understand that might not be an option for a HK citizen.

Gold isn't a very good investment, because it's unlikely to beat inflation, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to hedge against inflation with it. I'm pleased to hear inflation makes it hard to live off rent-seeking though, maybe we should have more inflation.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 30, 2009, 09:29:15 PM
Most people don't have near $1 million when they retire and they manage to survive

I am sure people can survive on a lot less, if survival is your goal.  It all depends on what you want.  Thing is, do you want to have a retirement on your terms, or do you want your wishes severely and unreasonably curtailed by the amount of resources you have?  If you know you only want the minimal amount of stuff to survive, then more power to you.  The usual problem is that people have half a million dollars when they retire but expect to live like kings. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 09:25:39 PM
He's not talking about backpacking (or rucksacking, as they say in his country).  He's talking about retiring to a low cost country.  Plenty of Americans do that right now in Central America and the Carribean.

And Cañadians in México, especially

I love this preemptory warning that a new post has been made when you're trying to respond.   :lol:  If I gave a shit what people were saying, I wouldn't be posting here!   :menace:

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 09:34:50 PM
Well, I don't think gold will ever go out of fashion. Over history human means of production have changed fast, but human nature very slowly. The price might go up and down a lot in the short term, though, I don't doubt that, but I'd assume that the ups and downs are around the same base-line. As for literature on the subject, no one will pay for a book merely advising "invest in gold". As for medical costs, I'm pretty sure a Swede could jump on a plane home for free healtchare even if he no longer live and pay taxes here, strangely enough, but I understand that might not be an option for a HK citizen.

Gold isn't a very good investment, because it's unlikely to beat inflation, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to hedge against inflation with it. I'm pleased to hear inflation makes it hard to live off rent-seeking though, maybe we should have more inflation.

You know how the Chinese word for "profit" is written?  It is a composite character, and the left hand side is actually another character.  "Shell".  Seashells.  You know why?  Thousands of years ago, there was no paper money and no gold.  People used seashells as money.  In the Han dynasty, the emperor really liked one guy, and he made him the richest man in China (possibly the world too).  What did the emperor give him?  The rights to the largest copper mine in the empire.  Because Han currency was made of copper coins. 

I'm sure someone once said that seashells will never go out of fashion.  Probably the same thing was said of copper too.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 09:34:57 PM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 30, 2009, 09:29:15 PM
Most people don't have near $1 million when they retire and they manage to survive

I am sure people can survive on a lot less, if survival is your goal.  It all depends on what you want.  Thing is, do you want to have a retirement on your terms, or do you want your wishes severely and unreasonably curtailed by the amount of resources you have?  If you know you only want the minimal amount of stuff to survive, then more power to you.  The usual problem is that people have half a million dollars when they retire but expect to live like kings.

You *can* live like a king in a poor country with half a million dollars. To the general population, you'd live like a king. And wealth is relative, after all. You're probably richer in absolute terms than quite a few real kings 500 years ago, but no one would call those kings poor.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 09:39:44 PM

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 09:34:50 PM
Well, I don't think gold will ever go out of fashion. Over history human means of production have changed fast, but human nature very slowly. The price might go up and down a lot in the short term, though, I don't doubt that, but I'd assume that the ups and downs are around the same base-line. As for literature on the subject, no one will pay for a book merely advising "invest in gold". As for medical costs, I'm pretty sure a Swede could jump on a plane home for free healtchare even if he no longer live and pay taxes here, strangely enough, but I understand that might not be an option for a HK citizen.

Gold isn't a very good investment, because it's unlikely to beat inflation, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to hedge against inflation with it. I'm pleased to hear inflation makes it hard to live off rent-seeking though, maybe we should have more inflation.

You know how the Chinese word for "profit" is written?  It is a composite character, and the left hand side is actually another character.  "Shell".  Seashells.  You know why?  Thousands of years ago, there was no paper money and no gold.  People used seashells as money.  In the Han dynasty, the emperor really liked one guy, and he made him the richest man in China (possibly the world too).  What did the emperor give him?  The rights to the largest copper mine in the empire.  Because Han currency was made of copper coins. 

I'm sure someone once said that seashells will never go out of fashion.  Probably the same thing was said of copper too.

Copper or shells isn't shiny the way gold is and doesn't have the same pull on the human mind, and of course you can never be entirely certain (you can't be certain of the global economy surviving in it's current form either). Interesting anecdote though, I didn't know that.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 30, 2009, 09:36:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 09:25:39 PM
He's not talking about backpacking (or rucksacking, as they say in his country).  He's talking about retiring to a low cost country.  Plenty of Americans do that right now in Central America and the Carribean.

And Cañadians in México, especially

Sure, if that's your thing.  Retirement planning is all about matching wants and means.  The formula remains the same: starting portfolio must be at least 25 times your expected annual expenditure when you retire.  Retiring to a low cost country will (probably) lower your expenditure, but it won't change the 25 times figure.  The usual problem is that people have unrealisitc expectations, but if you don't expect a lot, there won't be a problem.

Not an option for Mono as he must stay close to the graves of his ancestors. :pope:

But if they're angry with him, won't he be far away?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 09:50:50 PM
Not an option for Mono as he must stay close to the graves of his ancestors. :pope:

He already lives in an enormous low cost country.  Just the more expensive bit of it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 09:50:50 PM
Not an option for Mono as he must stay close to the graves of his ancestors. :pope:

Plenty of HKers retire to the mainland (like hundreds of thousands), where costs are lower.  It is a trade off.  Up there, you have a bigger flat, more space, cheaper food, more prestige (coz HKers are typically richer than mainlanders).  Lots of people even keep multiple wives.  The downside is the medical care in HK is better, we have less crime, and we have better amenities associated with big huge cities. 

I will retire in HK. 

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 30, 2009, 09:56:22 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 09:50:50 PM
Not an option for Mono as he must stay close to the graves of his ancestors. :pope:

He already lives in an enormous low cost country.  Just the more expensive bit of it.

That bit is as expensive as the biggest cities in the west.

Based on those trade-offs I'd certainly retire to the mainland. Surely it wouldn't be much a problem to go the short way to HK for health care and whatever amenities aren't available on the mainland? Couldn't you live like just a few hours away from HK?

Wasn't aware crime was a big problem in the police-state of China, I've always felt very safe when I've been to China, even as a westerner (the safest I've ever felt was in Sri Lanka during the civil war; lots of people with guns were my friends).

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 10:02:04 PM
Based on those trade-offs I'd certainly retire to the mainland. Surely it wouldn't be much a problem to go the short way to HK for health care and whatever amenities aren't available on the mainland? Couldn't you live like just a few hours away from HK?

If expect the unexpected is your thing, sure.  If you walk around the streets, you'll sometimes see odd looking people with needles in their hands.  Those are AIDs patients, and they need expensive drugs to survive.  Since they can't get the money or the drugs, their solution is to walk around with needles and extort money from random strangers.  Otherwise they'll insert a few drops of their blood into you. 

If you have a medical emergency and go to a hospital, you'll need to pay a huge cash deposit before a doctor will look at you.

On the mainland, you don't have a clear title to your property.  It's still a communist nation, remember?  All land is owned by The People.  If one day, some developer/local government really wants your flat for a new project, good luck to you.  They may not hit your building with a missle, but don't be surprised if one day you come back and see your building surrounded by 20 metre deep trenches on all sides. 

Also no access to CNN, BBC websites etc. 

You drink tap water, right?  Don't be surprised if one day you develop symptoms of lead poisoning.  Some industrial plant 100 yards away up stream maybe pumping that shit into the river. 

I can go on.

Speaking of Sri Lanka and retiring to poor countries. The lankese are generally very nostalgic for the days of the empire, when they had no civil strife, and you'll find pictures of the british royal family hanging on walls, shops named after members of the british royal house etc. Many englishmen retire there (Arthur C. Clarke lived there for most of his life). Heck, I could emigrate to Sri Lanka one day, if they aren't wealthy by then (they probably will be). Marvellous country, really, and quite friendly to westerners.


Mono: Ok, that does sound bad (though I've never been extorted for money by syringe-wielding AIDS patients any of the times I've to China, nor even seen a drug addict, but I've only been to Beijing and the wall etc and maybe it's worse in other places)

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 10:11:41 PM
If expect the unexpected is your thing, sure.  If you walk around the streets, you'll sometimes see odd looking people with needles in their hands.  Those are AIDs patients, and they need expensive drugs to survive.  Since they can't get the money or the drugs, their solution is to walk around with needles and extort money from random strangers.  Otherwise they'll insert a few drops of their blood into you. 

I think I got that email forward too

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 10:14:40 PMnor even seen a drug addict

My friend tried to score some drugs while in China.  Yes, he's an idiot.  He wanted an opium den and some of the weed he claimed grows wild along the Great Wall.  He was unsuccessful.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 30, 2009, 10:18:13 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 10:11:41 PM
If expect the unexpected is your thing, sure.  If you walk around the streets, you'll sometimes see odd looking people with needles in their hands.  Those are AIDs patients, and they need expensive drugs to survive.  Since they can't get the money or the drugs, their solution is to walk around with needles and extort money from random strangers.  Otherwise they'll insert a few drops of their blood into you. 

I think I got that email forward too

No, the HK networks did extensive reporting on this. 

 :lol:  :lol:

I know the penalty for bringing it in is death - I can only assume the pentalty for mere possession would be harsh enough  :lol:


Speaking of stupid things to do in China: Co-worker of my father, an american, got the idea of buying counterfeit CDs in China in large quantities (for re-sell). This would generally be acceptable. The Chinese, however, having been very much criticised by America for lacking respect for intellectual property, were happy to find an American, in China, committing crimes against intellectual property. So they threw him in jail and made a big deal about it.

Anyway, the point is, I do not believe it is as easy as "take some spare change, go to a low cost place and live like a king".  Low cost countries are low cost for good reasons.  There are trade offs. 

Oh, and I was speaking with Bmolsson at the Swedish Business Association meeting in Jakarta, about the two swedish kids who had bought a lot of cannabis in Bali (you get asked to buy all the time) and smoked it in their hotel room in quantities large enough for other guests to complain. So the police came, and apparently they didn't know how to bribe them. It seemed they were going down for many years, but Bmolsson told me he had bribed the judges, and they'd only get 3 months (or something). And then much later, when the verdict was given, it was 3 months, as Bmo had told me. (This was a big thing in swedish papers)

OK I've taken a stilnoct and I hope the above text is readable. Should sleep....

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 10:32:09 PM
Anyway, the point is, I do not believe it is as easy as "take some spare change, go to a low cost place and live like a king".  Low cost countries are low cost for good reasons.  There are trade offs.

That may be true of countries. The main tradeoff for low costs in rural areas is lack of jobs, which isn't a factor in retirement. Somebody in New York could retire to Alabama for a lot less money.

Americans should probably try to be careful abroad, and in some places it's probably a good idea to say you're Canadian or Australian or British. Probably not as bad in China nowadays though. My grandfather told me about when he was invited to China back in -78. He was taking pictures of some poeple, and a man started screaming at him in Chinese, making gestures with his hand in imitation of his large beer-belly (my grand-father has always been fond of beer). It took some time before my grand-father understood the problem and explained that he was "Ruodian" (Swedish). The chinese man probably thought him an American, but when he heard he was Swedish he instead became very friendly and apologetic. Sweden is well known in China as one of the first western countries to acknoweldge the people's republic.

They won't know the difference between different kinds of english. At the markets in China, I'd tell them I was bulgarian. This is an advice I got. They know bulgaria is poor, so they'll start the haggling at a lower price. One time, however, the salesman tried switching to Russian to talk to me. After that I said I was from the faroe islands, because they don't know where it is and they don't know if it's rich or not.

No sleep, so pardon my kidnapping of this thread while I tell another anecdote of Sri Lanka. My friend and I, both young men in our best years, one night found ourself in want of something to do for an evening in Colombo - unfortunately, this endeavour we made our own we found to be quite difficult in a pitch-dark city under curfew with few cars on the street except military vehicles, and few people to be seen walking except men in uniform with big weapons walking two-and-two one on each side of the street. After some searching, however, our new-found friend the tuk-tuk driver promised to find us a place owned by one of the generals, and hence above the law. It was a nice place, although hidden away, in a cellar, with a non-descript entrance. We were soon approached by ladies asking to join us, which we agreed to, though we didn't agree to buying them drinks. At least not as much as they wanted us to. They were pleasant company, but I assume that was their job to be. As the evening passed and the mental fortitude found itself conquered by beer, my friend suggested we should take them up on some of their more shame-less offers, and I acquiesced.

Anyway, we were informed the ladies in question were for purpose of company in the bar and no more, and we were escorted elsewhere, into another non-descript entrance, up a flight of stairs. I was very drunk, but I made it up the stairs with only the slightest of difficulty. I soon found myself in the company of a stout, short and sturdily built, muscular rather than fat, young lady. The experience was not entirely unpleasant, but not very pleasant either. As this is a family forum, I shall spare you the details. She was quite obviously tamil, based on her complexion and other characteristics, where tamils differ from sinhalese, but it was only later I drew the conclusion she was probably a prisoner of war. The Tamil Tigers employ female cadres with great efficiency, and they also make the best suicide bombers. Sinhalese troops are told to be extra careful with the ugly tamil women, as those women are the most likely to want to blow themselves up, or so it is said, from 25 years of counter-insurgency experience.

You'd all be quite right to condemn me for my lack of morals. Probably not a very good idea of mine to write this little confession of what might be a crime (anyone more well-versed in itl. law here who knows if it might be? I am talking about soliciting the services of a prisoner of war). I blame these sleeping pills, they do strange things to me without making me sleep. But I trust present company to be familiar with the old saying of snitches get stitches. Now I'll try taking another one of these things.

Quote from: Pat on December 31, 2009, 01:27:52 AM
No sleep, so pardon my kidnapping of this thread while I tell another anecdote of Sri Lanka. My friend and I, both young men in our best years, one night found ourself in want of something to do for an evening in Colombo - unfortunately, this endeavour we made our own we found to be quite difficult in a pitch-dark city under curfew with few cars on the street except military vehicles, and few people to be seen walking except men in uniform with big weapons walking two-and-two one on each side of the street. After some searching, however, our new-found friend the tuk-tuk driver promised to find us a place owned by one of the generals, and hence above the law. It was a nice place, although hidden away, in a cellar, with a non-descript entrance. We were soon approached by ladies asking to join us, which we agreed to, though we didn't agree to buying them drinks. At least not as much as they wanted us to. They were pleasant company, but I assume that was their job to be. As the evening passed and the mental fortitude found itself conquered by beer, my friend suggested we should take them up on some of their more shame-less offers, and I acquiesced.

Anyway, we were informed the ladies in question were for purpose of company in the bar and no more, and we were escorted elsewhere, into another non-descript entrance, up a flight of stairs. I was very drunk, but I made it up the stairs with only the slightest of difficulty. I soon found myself in the company of a stout, short and sturdily built, muscular rather than fat, young lady. The experience was not entirely unpleasant, but not very pleasant either. As this is a family forum, I shall spare you the details. She was quite obviously tamil, based on her complexion and other characteristics, where tamils differ from sinhalese, but it was only later I drew the conclusion she was probably a prisoner of war. The Tamil Tigers employ female cadres with great efficiency, and they also make the best suicide bombers. Sinhalese troops are told to be extra careful with the ugly tamil women, as those women are the most likely to want to blow themselves up, or so it is said, from 25 years of counter-insurgency experience.

You'd all be quite right to condemn me for my lack of morals. Probably not a very good idea of mine to write this little confession of what might be a crime (anyone more well-versed in itl. law here who knows if it might be? I am talking about soliciting the services of a prisoner of war). I blame these sleeping pills, they do strange things to me without making me sleep. But I trust present company to be familiar with the old saying of snitches get stitches. Now I'll try taking another one of these things.

Quoted for posterity and in case Pill-Popping-Pat feels like scrubbing it.

Quote from: Pat on December 30, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Americans should probably try to be careful abroad, and in some places it's probably a good idea to say you're Canadian or Australian or British. Probably not as bad in China nowadays though.

I wouldn't do that except in some Muslim countries where it might get you exploded or deheaded.

Quote from: Pat on December 31, 2009, 01:27:52 AM
As this is a family forum, I shall spare you the details.

:huh:

News to me.

This is not a family forum.

I wonder how he got that impression.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2009, 09:49:13 PMSure, if that's your thing.  Retirement planning is all about matching wants and means.  The formula remains the same: starting portfolio must be at least 25 times your expected annual expenditure when you retire.  Retiring to a low cost country will (probably) lower your expenditure, but it won't change the 25 times figure.  The usual problem is that people have unrealisitc expectations, but if you don't expect a lot, there won't be a problem.

If you calculate like that, 25 is too conservative. Most people retire between say 60-65 I guess. At that age, women in Germany still have an average life expectancy of about 23-24 years, men about 20 years or so. It's similar in other developed countries. Unless you are betting that you will be among those dying early, you need even more money.

You'll still be earning interest off of that money though, so it might last 30 years.

Interest is against Zanza's religion.

Migs fucked a POW.  :lol:

I don't know whether to consider that worse than knowingly fucking a slave whore, but the difference is certainly minute.

You're a nasty piece of work, Migs.

Quote from: Slargos on December 31, 2009, 06:35:52 AM
Migs fucked a POW.  :lol:

I don't know whether to consider that worse than knowingly fucking a slave whore, but the difference is certainly minute.

You're a nasty piece of work, Migs.

I´d like to see him admit doing that at the uni surrounded my the usual femi-nazi pack that prowls the area.

Quote from: Cecil on December 31, 2009, 06:56:44 AM
I´d like to see him admit doing that at the uni surrounded my the usual femi-nazi pack that prowls the area.

Especially using the same language.  The prisoner was stout and sturdily built.  The sex was not entirely unpleasant.  :lol:

Quote from: Zanza on December 31, 2009, 05:47:29 AM

If you calculate like that, 25 is too conservative. Most people retire between say 60-65 I guess. At that age, women in Germany still have an average life expectancy of about 23-24 years, men about 20 years or so. It's similar in other developed countries. Unless you are betting that you will be among those dying early, you need even more money.

25 times should last forever in most cases, because there will be interest and dividend income, and capital appreciation.  You take away 4%, the rest of the portfolio (96%) is still working for you for next year and beyond.  The number is arrived by testing hypothetical portfolios against past data.  It should survive even if it met Great Depression level recessions.  But past data is no gurantee of the future, so there is never 100% gurantee. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 31, 2009, 08:31:21 AM25 times should last forever in most cases, because there will be interest and dividend income, and capital appreciation.  You take away 4%, the rest of the portfolio (96%) is still working for you for next year and beyond.  The number is arrived by testing hypothetical portfolios against past data.  It should survive even if it met Great Depression level recessions.  But past data is no gurantee of the future, so there is never 100% gurantee.

So you leave the principal untouched? What's the point, especially if you don't have children?  :hmm:

Quote from: Slargos on December 31, 2009, 06:35:52 AM
Migs fucked a POW.  :lol:

I don't know whether to consider that worse than knowingly fucking a slave whore, but the difference is certainly minute.

You're a nasty piece of work, Migs.

Well it's not something I'm proud of. Still not entirely sure of her status, those are only my suspicions, and at any rate I didn't develop those suspicions until later. It is not true to describe it as "knowingly". And anyway she didn't seem to mind the whole thing; quite the opposite. I'll admit this is hard to know for sure, especially as she didn't speak english. My friend was able to get some communication going and was told most their clients were arabs.

Quote from: Cecil on December 31, 2009, 06:56:44 AM


I´d like to see him admit doing that at the uni surrounded my the usual femi-nazi pack that prowls the area.

Law in Stockholm is a staunchly right-wing bastion, at least among the students (the same can not be said for the staff - in family law in particular we had to endure some feminazism). I've probably told some of my fellow students while drunk.

Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2009, 03:09:50 AM
This is not a family forum.

I know it's not, but did you really want a detailed description?

Quote from: Pat on December 31, 2009, 11:32:37 AM

Quote from: Jacob on December 31, 2009, 03:09:50 AM
This is not a family forum.

I know it's not, but did you really want a detailed description?

Some of us a pretty fucking weird.  There might be a desire to hear graphic details on how you raped a tamale.

The spelling is Tamil, and there will be no details.  :lol:

And to think Pat old me several pages ago he was going to quit posting in this thread.

You misunderstood me; I meant I'd quit the discussion with you.

I apologize for my needlessly pointed words, though (I don't think you're only motivated by self-interest)

Quote from: Martim Silva on December 30, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
Protip: usually, after your career's first 10 years you have enough to start buying things that can generate alternative sources of income. They can easily make you independent of your current job.

"Easily"?  :unsure:

This thread sure took a turn for the strange.  :lol:

Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2009, 11:56:38 AM
Some of us a pretty fucking weird.  There might be a desire to hear graphic details on how you raped a tamale.

That depends. Was it hot?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 31, 2009, 01:23:10 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 31, 2009, 11:56:38 AM
Some of us a pretty fucking weird.  There might be a desire to hear graphic details on how you raped a tamale.

That depends. Was it hot?

Hot tamale.

 :lol:

I will say no more on this subject.

Quote from: Pat on December 31, 2009, 11:32:37 AMI know it's not, but did you really want a detailed description?

Good point.  I didn't.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 08:47:21 PM
You were on to something with admissions for children of the rich.  A scandalous percentage of students at top universities are "legacies" i.e. children of alumni.  It's not too much of a leap to think that donations to the schools factor into that.

And as he said, only those who can afford it go to the top schools, i.e. those with wealthy parents. Those who can't afford it, don't bother to even apply. So it's not merit-based at all; it's financially based.

Quote from: merithyn on December 31, 2009, 01:50:01 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 08:47:21 PM
You were on to something with admissions for children of the rich.  A scandalous percentage of students at top universities are "legacies" i.e. children of alumni.  It's not too much of a leap to think that donations to the schools factor into that.

And as he said, only those who can afford it go to the top schools, i.e. those with wealthy parents. Those who can't afford it, don't bother to even apply. So it's not merit-based at all; it's financially based.

I'm not at all familiar with US law schools, but from my US collegues I get the impression that the tuition is high but financing is relatively easy to get, and there are grants available. In short, the financial barrier, while it exists, is not insurmountable, but that other than the super-rich and connected, you need very good grades and LSAT scores to get into a top school (the "merit" barrier is higher).

@ Meri :huh: That's an exaggeration.  Princesca was like one step above living in a mobile home park and she went to Wellesley, and all of the workstudies I had a Harvard that I can recall came from modest backgrounds.  Yes, legacy admission is a real thing, and yes it's motivated primarily by alumni giving, but it's not *everyone* who attends.

Fuck lawyers. Scum of the earth.

Quote from: Pat on December 31, 2009, 11:30:58 AM
Well it's not something I'm proud of. Still not entirely sure of her status, those are only my suspicions, and at any rate I didn't develop those suspicions until later. It is not true to describe it as "knowingly". And anyway she didn't seem to mind the whole thing; quite the opposite. I'll admit this is hard to know for sure, especially as she didn't speak english. My friend was able to get some communication going and was told most their clients were arabs.

Story gets better and better.  :lol:

"I didn't know I was raping her, since I didn't speak her language."

In all fairness though, if she was used to being raped by arabs, you were probably Prince Charming in comparison.  :lol:

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:10:15 PM
Fuck lawyers. Scum of the earth.

:showoff:

Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2009, 02:13:19 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:10:15 PM
Fuck lawyers. Scum of the earth.

:showoff:

Hitler had it wrong. It wasn't the jews that was the problem, it was the lawyers he should have went after.

Quote from: Caliga on December 31, 2009, 02:08:14 PM
@ Meri :huh: That's an exaggeration.  Princesca was like one step above living in a mobile home park and she went to Wellesley, and all of the workstudies I had a Harvard that I can recall came from modest backgrounds.  Yes, legacy admission is a real thing, and yes it's motivated primarily by alumni giving, but it's not *everyone* who attends.

It is, of course, possible to go to those schools with a lower income, but it's much more likely that you'll do so if your parents, or you, have money. The rest will "settle" for state schools because cost is a major factor beyond tuition, books, and housing. (Consider the additional costs for a kid from Des Moines going to MIT versus UIUC, i.e travel expenses, cost of living changes, etc.) Luckily, most state schools are wonderful bastions of education, i.e. U of Iowa Writing Program and U of Illinois Engineering School.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:16:53 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2009, 02:13:19 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:10:15 PM
Fuck lawyers. Scum of the earth.

:showoff:

Hitler had it wrong. It wasn't the jews that was the problem, it was the lawyers he should have went after.

He just wanted to make sure he got them all and it's much easier to spot them by their crooked noses than an easily forged diploma.  :P

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:16:53 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 31, 2009, 02:13:19 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:10:15 PM
Fuck lawyers. Scum of the earth.

:showoff:

Hitler had it wrong. It wasn't the jews that was the problem, it was the lawyers he should have went after.

Wouldn't have made for such a great movie with Lancaster, Schell, Tracy, Dietrich and Widmark, then.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 31, 2009, 02:10:15 PM
Fuck lawyers.

I wish more young ladies would take this advice.  :D

Quote from: Slargos on December 31, 2009, 02:12:54 PM
Story gets better and better.  :lol:

"I didn't know I was raping her, since I didn't speak her language."

In all fairness though, if she was used to being raped by arabs, you were probably Prince Charming in comparison.  :lol:

You are just delighted to have, at long last, found someone whose sexual antics are even more loathesome than your own.  :D

Yet another Swede I might add ...  :hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on December 31, 2009, 02:32:43 PM

Quote from: Slargos on December 31, 2009, 02:12:54 PM
Story gets better and better.  :lol:

"I didn't know I was raping her, since I didn't speak her language."

In all fairness though, if she was used to being raped by arabs, you were probably Prince Charming in comparison.  :lol:

You are just delighted to have, at long last, found someone whose sexual antics are even more loathesome than your own.  :D

Yet another Swede I might add ...  :hmm:

Spoken from someone who actually went ahead and PROCREATED with his shikse plaything, that's rich.  :P

Though I don't really consider my sexual antics loathesome. I'm always a generous and considerate lover to a fault.  :P

Quote from: merithyn on December 31, 2009, 01:50:01 PM

And as he said, only those who can afford it go to the top schools, i.e. those with wealthy parents. Those who can't afford it, don't bother to even apply. So it's not merit-based at all; it's financially based.

Most of the top students at my hich school applied to elite private schools, regardless of wealth, as you never know what financial aid packages will be offered.  Some poorer students were given very generous ones, others were not. 

Most of these elite schools have enormous endowments and have a large percentage of students on financial aid.

Quote from: Slargos on December 31, 2009, 02:38:51 PM
Spoken from someone who actually went ahead and PROCREATED with his shikse plaything, that's rich.  :P

Non-Nazis have a slightly different definition of "loathesome". Most of us don't have the instinctual revulsion towards 'race-mixing'.  ;)

QuoteThough I don't really consider my sexual antics loathesome.

Of course *you* don't.  :lol:

Quote from: Zanza on December 31, 2009, 09:48:37 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 31, 2009, 08:31:21 AM25 times should last forever in most cases, because there will be interest and dividend income, and capital appreciation.  You take away 4%, the rest of the portfolio (96%) is still working for you for next year and beyond.  The number is arrived by testing hypothetical portfolios against past data.  It should survive even if it met Great Depression level recessions.  But past data is no gurantee of the future, so there is never 100% gurantee.

So you leave the principal untouched? What's the point, especially if you don't have children?  :hmm:

The principal will most likely be used at some point.  Whether it will be used (and by how much) is really up to market conditions.  It is there because I don't know how long I'll live.  The principal needs to be large enough so that it can recover even if, say, it hit 07-09 conditions. 

Quote from: Malthus on December 31, 2009, 01:20:22 PM
This thread sure took a turn for the strange.  :lol:

Yeah.  Who'd have guessed the subject of Pat's...discussions from the OP.  This is odd even by languish standards  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on December 31, 2009, 02:08:14 PM

Quote from: merithyn on December 31, 2009, 01:50:01 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 08:47:21 PM
You were on to something with admissions for children of the rich.  A scandalous percentage of students at top universities are "legacies" i.e. children of alumni.  It's not too much of a leap to think that donations to the schools factor into that.

And as he said, only those who can afford it go to the top schools, i.e. those with wealthy parents. Those who can't afford it, don't bother to even apply. So it's not merit-based at all; it's financially based.

I'm not at all familiar with US law schools, but from my US collegues I get the impression that the tuition is high but financing is relatively easy to get, and there are grants available. In short, the financial barrier, while it exists, is not insurmountable, but that other than the super-rich and connected, you need very good grades and LSAT scores to get into a top school (the "merit" barrier is higher).

Exactly,

Anyone can get into a free school.  You have to have actual merit to get into a demanding school.

What's a free school?

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2009, 07:59:06 PM
What's a free school?

Then one Pat goes to.  Apparently education in his part of the country costs nothing and everyone has merit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 08:03:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2009, 07:59:06 PM
What's a free school?

Then one Pat goes to.  Apparently education in his part of the country costs nothing and everyone has merit.

I see.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 08:03:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2009, 07:59:06 PM
What's a free school?

Then one Pat goes to.  Apparently education in his part of the country costs nothing and everyone has merit.

Even rapists.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 31, 2009, 08:03:53 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2009, 07:59:06 PM
What's a free school?

Then one Pat goes to.  Apparently education in his part of the country costs nothing and everyone has merit.

:huh:

It's been a while since we started funding swedish schools with tax money rather than tuition fees.

But yes, rapists do get favoured treatment in admission, since it's been decided that too few of our new countrymen get higher education and we need diversity in the educational system.

I guess in that sense, Miglia pulled a Dorsey.

Found out last night that my brother just took a new job - making 30% more than his already substantial salary of $250,000/year. His comment when I said good job was, "Yeah, but it just means I'm less in debt, so it's not like it's real actual money." :blink:

The man will be making $325,000/year, and that's his complaint?? Easy answer: stop spending so much damn money if it's putting you in debt! :frusty:

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 08:31:32 AM
Found out last night that my brother just took a new job - making 30% more than his already substantial salary of $250,000/year. His comment when I said good job was, "Yeah, but it just means I'm less in debt, so it's not like it's real actual money." :blink:

The man will be making $325,000/year, and that's his complaint?? Easy answer: stop spending so much damn money if it's putting you in debt! :frusty:

lolz

He probably said that just because he knew it would exasperate you.

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 08:31:32 AM
Found out last night that my brother just took a new job - making 30% more than his already substantial salary of $250,000/year. His comment when I said good job was, "Yeah, but it just means I'm less in debt, so it's not like it's real actual money." :blink:

The man will be making $325,000/year, and that's his complaint?? Easy answer: stop spending so much damn money if it's putting you in debt! :frusty:

I always say I'm in debt to friends and relatives when the topic of my income comes up - that's an indirect way of telling them they shouldn't be asking for handouts. :P

Given that they own two brand new, $35k+ vehicles, live in an exclusive neighborhood, and just put in a pool and deck, I don't doubt for a second that they're in debt up their their eyeballs. I just can't believe that he'd do that to himself.

Quote from: Martinus on January 01, 2010, 08:58:59 AM
I always say I'm in debt to friends and relatives when the topic of my income comes up - that's an indirect way of telling them they shouldn't be asking for handouts. :P

My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

Is a $35k+ vehicle something special? You make it sound like it is.

A car that hasn't been owned before is something special.

Quote from: Zanza on January 01, 2010, 09:49:17 AM
Is a $35k+ vehicle something special? You make it sound like it is.

Spending $70,000 on vehicles for two people is a lot, especially if you're crying poor at a quarter mil a year. (And I actually think his big car, the Chrysler Aspen, was closer to $45k with all of the bells and whistles he added.)

I just can't imagine going into debt like that when making nearly $20,000/month.

Quote from: Zanza on January 01, 2010, 09:49:17 AM
Is a $35k+ vehicle something special? You make it sound like it is.

Yeah.  $35k can't buy a basic Honda Accord here. 

Quote from: Monoriu on January 01, 2010, 10:28:58 AM

Quote from: Zanza on January 01, 2010, 09:49:17 AM
Is a $35k+ vehicle something special? You make it sound like it is.

Yeah.  $35k can't buy a basic Honda Accord here.

$35k will get you a sweet ride.

Quote from: Zanza on January 01, 2010, 09:49:17 AM
Is a $35k+ vehicle something special? You make it sound like it is.

I see your point but 35 is about where the luxury vehicles start kicking in which is probably why Meri picked that number.  But I would be very suprised if someone earning over 300 a year didnt drive at least that.

I don't have anything to disprove Meri's assertion that her brother spends much more than he earns.  But I think "he drives 2 35k cars" is not a good piece of evidence to support that assertion.  Spending 70k on cars should be within his means. 

"He buys a 35k car every 6 months" would be excessive, for example.

Luxury vehicle must mean something different in North America than it means in Europe. Nothing that is classified as luxury vehicle here is selling anywhere near $35k. Not even twice that.

And spending twice your monthly income on a car does not seem outragously much to me. I think most people would spend relatively more on a car than that. Especially middle class people.

Quote from: Zanza on January 01, 2010, 11:47:33 AM
Luxury vehicle must mean something different in North America than it means in Europe. Nothing that is classified as luxury vehicle here is selling anywhere near $35k. Not even twice that.

And spending twice your monthly income on a car does not seem outragously much to me. I think most people would spend relatively more on a car than that. Especially middle class people.

I think Mercedez E class goes for about US$100k here.  And our roads are packed full of them. 

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

That would make me genuinely angry, has he pretended to forget that he owes you that (to him) minor sum?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2010, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

That would make me genuinely angry, has he pretended to forget that he owes you that (to him) minor sum?

Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 12:15:24 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2010, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

That would make me genuinely angry, has he pretended to forget that he owes you that (to him) minor sum?

Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing.

With the defaulters I insist that future money provided is a gift rather than a "loan"...............that way at least one can pose as a Germanic Chieftain type rather than a naive moron easily parted from his money  :huh:

There is actually only one defaulter, and for a paltry sum, but it doesn't half piss me off  :P

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 12:15:24 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2010, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

That would make me genuinely angry, has he pretended to forget that he owes you that (to him) minor sum?

Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing.

I pretty much assume any family loan (read: loan to my brother) is going to not be paid back.

My income doesn't "stack up" it lies flat.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:31:10 PM
My income doesn't "stack up" it lies flat.

That is the problem with Canadian money.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 02:33:35 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:31:10 PM
My income doesn't "stack up" it lies flat.

That is the problem with Canadian money.

That joke would have been funny in 1995.

Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 02:46:40 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 02:33:35 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:31:10 PM
My income doesn't "stack up" it lies flat.

That is the problem with Canadian money.

That joke would have been funny in 1995.

Loonies. Still funny.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2010, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

That would make me genuinely angry, has he pretended to forget that he owes you that (to him) minor sum?

I stopped worrying about it a while ago. I figure it's a gift at this point.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 12:15:24 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2010, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
My brother still owes me $2500 from when he got a divorce... 10 years ago. Anything he gave me wouldn't be a handout. :P

That would make me genuinely angry, has he pretended to forget that he owes you that (to him) minor sum?

Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing.

I should have thought of that. <_<  My little brother owes me a grand.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 02:57:29 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 02:46:40 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 02:33:35 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:31:10 PM
My income doesn't "stack up" it lies flat.

That is the problem with Canadian money.

That joke would have been funny in 1995.

Loonies. Still funny.

No, what's funny is the collapsing value of the greenback. :Canuck:

One problem is that many people today don't have any idea how to live within their means and save a reasonable percentage of their income.  That, coupled with unrealistic ideas about how they "should" be living, creates a financial nightmare for many. 

Perhaps there ought to be a small course on financial literacy taught in high schools, or even in undergrad.

Never lend money to family, friends, colleagues, or in fact any individual.  Only lend to governments and banks.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 01, 2010, 09:45:22 PM
One problem is that many people today don't have any idea how to live within their means and save a reasonable percentage of their income.  That, coupled with unrealistic ideas about how they "should" be living, creates a financial nightmare for many. 

Perhaps there ought to be a small course on financial literacy taught in high schools, or even in undergrad.

I had my first dollar when I reached 18.  It worked wonders.  The belief that no one will come to my rescue if I screw up financially is a very strong incentive to be conservative. 

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 02:57:29 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 01, 2010, 02:46:40 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 02:33:35 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on January 01, 2010, 01:31:10 PM
My income doesn't "stack up" it lies flat.

That is the problem with Canadian money.

That joke would have been funny in 1995.

Loonies. Still funny.

and the Toonie (the $2) twice as funny . I'm still honked off that we didn't call that one a Doubloon :angry:

Quote from: Monoriu on January 01, 2010, 10:30:10 PM
Never lend money to family, friends, colleagues, or in fact any individual.  Only lend to governments and banks.

:yes:  And, I would add, never borrow from such sources either.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 01, 2010, 11:34:29 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on January 01, 2010, 10:30:10 PM
Never lend money to family, friends, colleagues, or in fact any individual.  Only lend to governments and banks.

:yes:  And, I would add, never borrow from such sources either.

yep/ I've been on the wrong end of both those situations, and it kinda sucks alll round actually.

Quote from: merithyn on January 01, 2010, 10:23:37 AM
Spending $70,000 on vehicles for two people is a lot, especially if you're crying poor at a quarter mil a year. (And I actually think his big car, the Chrysler Aspen, was closer to $45k with all of the bells and whistles he added.)

I just can't imagine going into debt like that when making nearly $20,000/month.

Somebody who would spend $45K on a Chrysler is not only stupid but also mentally ill.  :huh:

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 12:15:24 PM
Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing don't do family loans, ever.

FYP.  My sister in law has repeatedly tried to hit us up, but I think by now she's learned better, as we know damn well she'd never pay anything back, ever...

...and to provide another example of how family will always fuck you over, she "rents" her house from her dad, who had to harass her for almost a year before she made a single rent payment.  Princesca and I laughed and knew that would happen the second she moved in.

I'm a generous man. :goodboy:

And no, I won't loan anybody on languish money. I'm generous, not stupid.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 12:15:24 PM
Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing.

My dad always told me that I should never 'loan' money to a family member because chances are I won't get it back and if I do it could damage the relationship.  Either give it to them or don't.  If they pay back it's a bonus.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2010, 09:59:45 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 01, 2010, 12:15:24 PM
Family members always think that debts don't matter. Which is why I get it in writing.

My dad always told me that I should never 'loan' money to a family member because chances are I won't get it back and if I do it could damage the relationship.  Either give it to them or don't.  If they pay back it's a bonus.

My dad had even better advice.  Don't lend family money.

I took the hint :contract: