One of the questions is "In your view, being 'rich' means having an income in the ..." — with various choices: "top 25%, top 20%, top 15%, top 10%, top 5%, top 1%." So the answer you get to "Are you rich?" is based on your own definition of who is rich. I only need to make $153,000 to be in the top 5% where I live and only $175,000 to be in the top 5% in the NYC metropolitan area. Who thinks they're rich if they make $175,000 in NYC? Can you even afford a 1-bedroom apartment?!
From the article accompanying the quiz:
The researchers found that a “vast majority” of their respondents believed they were poorer, relative to others, than they actually were. The people who thought they were right in the middle of the income distribution – perfectly middle class, you might say — were, on average, closer to the 75th percentile. And as a group, respondents whose incomes actually resembled the true median thought they were closer to the bottom fourth....People are looking at outward manifestations of wealth and thinking about their own capacity to buy things. The perspectives are different. Also, we think about social class, and in that view, "The Rich" are those other people. F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said "The rich are different from you and me," and some people like to think that Ernest Hemingway retorted, "Yes, they have more money," and that "they have more money" is the right answer and also what they'd have retorted if they'd been there at the time.
The NYT quiz seems to think that too, but I'm with Fitzgerald. There's more to it than money, though some people have so much money that, of course, you call them rich, no matter what their other attributes are. But the quiz tries to set a line: Make $175,000 and you're rich. But it takes no responsibility because that 5th question puts it on you to define rich.
Now, that 5th question does let you bail out and answer "don't know/none of these." When I asked Meade if he thought we were rich, he said yes and it was because "Everyone in America is rich." It's all a matter of perspective. If you give the "don't know/none of these" answer on the NYT quiz, it will tell you — instead of "You're rich" or "You're not rich" — "You’ll have to decide for yourself if you’re rich or not."
"Now that you know who you are/What do you want to be?"
(Does the "scientist" in the video look familiar? Look closely, guess, then click here to see his father's last name.)
पोस्ट्स
१५७ टिप्पण्या:
Wrong units. Income is like the deficit. Wealth is like the debt.
Monkee spawn!
What rhh said. "Rich" is wealth, not income.
indeed. cash income is just a target for taxes. "rich" has to do with net assets.
I don't have to spend 90% of my waking hours finding food, water, and shelter. I am crazy rotten rich.
Insty points out often, markers defining rich 40 years ago. A second car, full set of encyclopedias, big color TV with cable subscription. A few years later, a computer.
Now a huge swath of the population has a computer in their POCKET! I can buy kiwi, pineapple and plantains, every day of the year. There are fruits and vegetables at the stores I shop at, here in the middle of Continente, I cant even identify. Even the most powerful Kings of yore could not access food we all take as a protected right today in the United States
I graduated in the top 95% of my class.
this is Obviously THE THING to remember,
next time you hear a democrat saying: "we need to get the rich to pay their fair share"
Paco Wové said...
"Rich" is wealth, not income.
Except when that income is guaranteed by the state.
As Whitey Bulger said about government work, "behind the job comes the pension."
Slide the income line to $400,000+ and for many major metros you get the You’ll have to decide for yourself if you’re rich or not. answer, too.
I'll help: You're doing okay in NY and Boston. You're entry level in Palo Alto.
The flaw in this article has been well nailed already, but also: wealth rather than annual income is not merely the technical measure if richness, it is also the measure of how rich one feels.
Except when that income is guaranteed by the state.
The income stream has a present value, namely what you can sell it for. That's its value.
In America you can have zero income and still be the richest person in the world for all eternity because you are free to choose to believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
I actually grew up thinking that the the lyrics to that song were:
Maybe you're a Rich Man, Maybe you're a Rich Man, Maybe you're a Rich man too
Even the most powerful Kings of yore could not access food we all take as a protected right today in the United States
That's true, but "rich" is a relative term. Having and doing things your neighbors can't afford.
The actual Fitzgerald quote is about the very rich. That does make a difference, though in my limited experience with the very rich, they aren’t that different from you and me except for the private jets.
There are two ways to be rich; have more or want less.
Slide the income line to $400,000+ and for many major metros you get the You’ll have to decide for yourself if you’re rich or not. answer, too.
It's odd they would stop the income slider at $400,000 if it would generate a non-answer. There's a motive there.
I’m so old I remember Carter saying $25k/yr was rich.
Or I’m senile.
"That's true, but "rich" is a relative term. Having and doing things your neighbors can't afford."
Yes. In this life, even the very rich have to sometimes eat shit sandwiches. Only difference is the very rich get to eat shit sandwiches that have more bread, that's all.
Meade is correct. The definition of rich IS all perspective. You can be financially "poor". Have a low income and be rich in life. You can be wealthy and have a poor unhappy life.
If you have faith, family, friends, health. You are rich. Wealthy in soul and spirit.
It doesn't require a lot of money to be rich. Sometimes having wealth/money is a big help. Other times it is a hindrance. Just look at those who suddenly become "rich" by winning the Lottery. Often, their lives are ruined and they end of worse than if they had just continued.
Does having money help? Maybe. Depends on where you live. Are you rich/wealthy in NYC with an income of $150K or are you rich/wealthy in Podunk City flyover America with the same money.
Or does that income actually matter if you hate where you are living?
Rhardin has the nub of it - this is the same bait-and-switch that the "tax the rich" folks use to justify their greed. They hate people who already have money and transfer that envy to those with incomes of those who (usually) don't yet.
You'd think the NYT knows better, and I cynically assume they do, as it lets them push a narrative.
"Meade is correct."
I always feel super rich whenever I hear those words.
To be fair to the NYT, it did not miss the point that it's a matter of perspective. That's why question 5 is written the way it is. And the core concern (which I didn't go into in my post) is how people vote. If you think you're poorer than you really are (relative to other people), you might go for left-wing candidates because you think you'll get more and the money will come from other people. But if you find out you're really somewhere else, and the money will come from YOU, you might flip to the right.
And your political position is subjective. If you think just being an American makes me rich — Meade's idea (quoted in the post) — then you're probably a right-winger. Lefties will try to pry you away by drumming into you the idea that America is bad and has wronged you terribly, and if pessimism turns you on, you might flip. Meanwhile, the righties will wave the flag and play patriotic music and speak of higher values and you may stick with them (especially if the economy is good).
Better check your cruelly neutral privilege, girl.
Yes. In this life, even the very rich have to sometimes eat shit sandwiches. Only difference is the very rich get to eat shit sandwiches that have more bread, that's all.
Dog catalogs sell a powder to be sprinkled on food that "gives feces an unpleasant taste." It could be used to counter the effect of bread.
The only person with an income of $175,000 who can rent a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is the child of someone who has a rent-controlled apartment who has died. Everyone else is SOL.
I gave up flying before it became a rich person's hobby. My most expensive airplane cost $1800.
People who make $175K/year can rent a 1BR in Manhattan, which they might find in a decent area in the neighborhood of $3,500/month. It's just that they'd be paying around 50% of their after-tax income for that place, which is not unusual.
I was job searching a few years ago and came across an IT position in Manhattan that had the princely pay range of $50,000 to $60,000. I did not apply for that position.
"It could be used to counter the effect of bread."
Sure, but then everyone on the internet could know I'm a dog.
You're rich if working is optional--if you can maintain your desired lifestyle indefinitely on income from investments. Anythig less and, while you may be affluent, you are not rich.
I gave up flying before it became a rich person's hobby. My most expensive airplane cost $1800.
I gave up sailing, at least racing, for the same reason.
"gives feces an unpleasant taste."
This is called "gilding the lily."
"I was job searching a few years ago and came across an IT position in Manhattan that had the princely pay range of $50,000 to $60,000. I did not apply for that position."
I was making exactly twice that working as a gardener in Cincinnati. But the travel expenses to be with my girlfriend 500 miles away were driving me into bankruptcy. So I retired.
I would walk 500 miles.
I don't get to play because all city choices are in the US.
The income stream has a present value, namely what you can sell it for. That's its value.
That's why I said a guaranteed income is wealth, not just a paycheck.
tim maguire foolishly said...
You're rich if working is optional--if you can maintain your desired lifestyle indefinitely on income from investments
Well, in THAT case, not many people are rich; because MOST PEOPLE'S desired lifestyle is more luxurious than what they are living now.
my investments only allow me to afford this Crappy 36 foot Yacht, That is NOT my desired lifestyle!
Meade is on fire this morning.
working as a gardener in Cincinnati.
You must have been an Executive Gardener.
So Jeff Bezos, he of the $100 billion or so in Amazon stock, is not "wealthy"?
Interesting to know.
John Henry
"I graduated in the top 95% of my class."
Didn't the Babylon Bee just report that "Joe Biden corrects the record on his class rank: "I graduated in the top 76% of my class.""?
Income is taxable.
Wealth is non-taxable
(In the US and with a few minor exceptions like property taxes. Generally true in the rest of the world as well)
John Henry
If you live in the United States of America, you are rich. Period.
Meade said...
In America you can have zero income and still be the richest person in the world for all eternity because you are free to choose to believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
As a wise man once said...
"You could have a dick the size of needle, and your dick alone would still not pass through the eye of that needle.
So fuck it, buy that Porsche."
The only way to be rich even with a high income is to A. Have generational wealth and/or B. Embrace voluntary simplicity.
Mr. Pants, bless him, thinks we’re rich because he has a high income, but we are not. The high income only came after many years of low to middling income during which time it was paycheck to paycheck because of no generational wealth, an insufficient commitment to poverty lifestyle while building savings and security in the early years and the job losses/family emergencies/general setbacks that people can’t avoid.
If you haven’t lived with enough planning and frugality in your early years, or been blessed with parents who provided you with college tuition/down payment on your first house/etc, it’s very expensive to be middle class, and you likely do not have a lot of disposable income even with a high salary. You probably have a large mortgage because you couldn’t afford to buy a house until later in life, when you had a family and couldn’t do the wealth building thing of buying a shitty duplex in a bad school district and living in half and renting out the other half. You have car payments because you need adequate transportation for your job and your wife can’t drive the kids around in some shitbox that’s paid for but unreliable. All the things that are necessary for kids for participation in middle class life add up unless you have the kind of parents who pay to send the grandkids to camp, for braces, for dance classes, etc. You have to save aggressively for retirement because you didn’t start making real money until 45. Every time you turn around someone wants money from you in some fashion ~ taxes, home repairs, insurance deductibles, vet bills, socially required gifts, on and on and on. Your kid has to pay full freight at college because she’s not low-income nor a minority, but she has low four figures in her 529 because most of her lifetime her parents could only afford to contribute $100 a month to it after keeping the lights on and food on the table and gas in the tank.
Most of this is a choice, of course, but the point is that many poor people have no idea how expensive a middle class lifestyle is when you have no helps from anyone, either other taxpayers or your parents or grandparents. I’m not arguing for or against those things but just pointing out that you have to make a lot of sacrifices early on or be born with advantages if $175,000 is going to mean a lavish lifestyle.
But I FEEL rich. A few years short of retirement, mortgage set to be paid off in two years, no car payments, one child completed college last year, other child in second year of college, investments done VERY WELL, and a rental property left by my parents' estate. We live within our means and still watch what we spend. Thankfully, I married a woman who looks at money the same way I do.
As long as there’s someone making more than me, I’m not rich.
"You must have been an Executive Gardener."
One of those 'CEO Gardeners' that Bernie rails about.
H&O: Rich Girl
Shatner's version - Common People
"No job too dirty for the fucking scientists." -- Burroughs
Blogger I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
The only way to be rich even with a high income is to A. Have generational wealth
Bullshit. Look at the Forbes list of 400 richest people in the US. Lots of people on that list who came from middle or even lower class backgrounds and no money.
Jeff Bezos, for example. Johnson (name? the guy from BET), Warren Buffet, Sam Walton, lots and lots of others.
The nice thing about the US, and why I would agree with Meade and others about how being in the US we are already rich, is that it is relatively easy to attain financial wealth. Defined as, say, a net worth over $10mm.
There are roughly 1,347,336 decamillionaire households in America.
https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionaires-decamillionaires-america/
and/or B. Embrace voluntary simplicity.
Don't know how you meant this but if you meant something like "Spend less than you earn and invest the rest" you are right. You can become wealthy in the US doing just that.
John Henry
Perhaps we need to measure things in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Poor is when you cannot meet the basic level of food and shelter as the base level. Second level is safety and security. For almost 100% of Americans, we can either get food and housing or the government programs such as SNAP or section 8 or HUD provide the basics. (homelessness caused by economics can be solved, addiction and mental illness are harder)
For safety and Security a good portion of the US, no matter what level of income, is safe and secure. We have horrible pockets of crime, as illustrated by the brew-ha-ha over Baltimore. (been to Baltimore - it is really bad)
We have high percentages of people with phones (land lines), mobile phones, air-conditioning, modern appliances (no cooking over fires), TV, even computer access. We all have access to libraries, schools, and learning.
What separates people are toys, savings accounts, and luxury items. Are there people who struggle, yes? Many due to poor decisions and some bad luck.
We do not have poverty like India or African countries - so I agree with Mead. We are all rich.
I dispute the claim that 95% of New Yorkers can't afford to rent an apartment. There are a lot of NYC apartments available at $1200 or so a month. A person making about $60,000 would take home a little under $4000 a month, so that rent would be 1/3 of take home pay. If you are willing to share rent of a 2 bedroom, you can bring that down to $800/month affordable at $35,000 per year. My more general point (and I believe the point of the article) is that we don't know anyone who is living on this kind of pay, so we can't imagine how they could possibly survive.
In our metro area, you're not in the top 5% until you're making $312,000. (Household.)
gilbar said Well, in THAT case, not many people are rich; because MOST PEOPLE'S desired lifestyle is more luxurious than what they are living now.
My husband and I will sometimes play the mental game...."What if we won the lottery". Our lifestyle wouldn't change into something luxurious.
Our list of wants is pretty small. We would keep the same house and then spend some money on basic things like:
Set up a fund/trust to pay our living expenses and bills so we don't have to think about that anymore. Pay off all debts. (Which isn't very much anyway) Set up a trust for grandchildren college (with conditions), charitable trusts and other financial and tax planning issues.
Some remodeling and garden upgrades. Perhaps hire a landscaping/gardening service to do the bigger things that we are physically not able to do anymore. Redo the deck. Build a nice garage.
Plan some small trips: buy a smaller and used RV (1976 GMC motor home) and a little car to haul behind and travel places in the US and Canada. Not interested in an ocean cruise or world travel (Done that) Although a trip to New Zealand would be pretty cool. Don't want a second home.
The only real luxury would be to buy a cool vintage auto of some sort. I want a 1949 Buick Roadmaster Convertable :-)
Donate some money to a couple of LOCAL charities and never tell anyone that we have won the lottery.
That's about it. Our life style wouldn't change much. More travel. Less worry. We are happy as we are.
If the Democrats win the next election, the first thing they’ll want to do is raise taxes on the rich. Who out there is rich? Show of hands please. Nobody? Nobody at all?
The difference between the truly affluent and the $45,000-truck affluent is not what they have, it’s what they have saved.
Income is taxable.
Wealth is non-taxable
Really? Capital gains taxes, while lower than income tax, are still formidable. And some of us live in states which not only have income taxes, but apply the income tax rate, which can exceed 15%, to capital gains. Wealth is certainly taxed, and home ownership is largely metaphorical. Even if you've paid the bank off, property taxes are substantial enough in some places, and recourse for its collection so severe, that you're in effect renting your house from the municipality. There are tax shelters and tax advantaged investment options to protect some of your gains, but personal wealth is taxed.
Not to get into Meade's personal business but why shouldn't a gardener be able to make $120m/yr?
Judging by some of the posts here about gardening at MeadeHouse, he seems to know what he is doing.
One of the nice things about the US is that if you have a skill, people will pay you handsomely for it.
Lots of people will pay good money to someone who can make their house look beautiful. Hire a couple of people to do the unskilled, physical, work like mowing and raking and such and you can do even better.
In any event, well done, Meade, well done. THAT'S what America is all about.
John Henry
Richer US households fueling a hot job sector: ‘wealth work’. You can get wealthy via wealth work, but it takes time. And you'll never feel rich, because the people you're working for are so wealthy.
Blogger The Godfather said...
If the Democrats win the next election, the first thing they’ll want to do is raise taxes on the rich.
Since the rich pay zero taxes and always have, how will they raise them?
It will probably require a Constitutional amendment, similar to the 16th, to impose any tax at all on the rich. Gotta have taxes before you can raise them.
Anyone want to give odds on an Amendment to tax the rich?
(God says "I don't see it happening in my lifetime")
John Henry
"You must have been an Executive Gardener."
Chief Executive Gardener. King of the landscape. Top of the punch list. Head of the compost heap.
I feel much richer than my wife does.
Because I know we can settle nearly anywhere on earth and live like the upstairs people on "Upstairs,Downstairs", in our retirement.
And we can fly anywhere on earth and stay a month or two whenever we feel like it.
But we can't do that in San Francisco (while not giving the house to the kids), nor London, nor NY.
We could probably do that in Madison WI, certainly so based on your real estate prices, though I don't know about the servants.
She is from SF, so she has her idea of rich, and it is rich in SF.
From a Don Henley song (of all places): To want what I have, to take what I'm given with grace...
In order to feel rich in SF you need not only have wealth, you need to make it when you're young.
It's not even a question of feeling wealthy, it's a question of feeling successful. That's a tough town.
Blogger daskol said...
Really? Capital gains taxes, while lower than income tax, are still formidable.
Sure. Of course. Certainly.
Capital gains taxes are on income, a specific type of income but still income.
If I had bought 100 shares of Berkshire Hathaway back in the 70s when I first heard of it, It would be worth $30mm today.
I didn't because it was $300 a share then. It is now $303m per share.
I would have acquired a lot of wealth but would have received not a penny in income from that increase (B-H, like Amazon, pays no dividend)
It is only when I sell the stock, converting the wealth to income, that I pay any taxes at all. In the form of capital gains taxes on the increased value.
So, I stand by my statement that in the US we pay no taxes on wealth.
John Henry
Also, when people are asked to consider their relative position with respect to income, they tend to make the comparison solely to others having income (in other words, if I said I think I have an income in the top 25%, I am comparing my income with other incomes). This, however, excludes the significant (and ever-growing) segment of the population that earns no income - kids, unemployed spouses, welfare recipients, students, etc. - so my relative income will necessarily be higher than I perceive.
Even by that narrow definition, wouldn't the estate tax constitute a wealth tax? Or is the intergenerational transfer of wealth also somehow income?
Amen, Cracker Emcee.
If you ever listen to Dave Ramsey, approximately half of his caller's tales of financial woe involve the purchase of a new pick-up.
Useless if you don't live in a big city.
Proud to not be rich, yet somehow do what I want to do and have no debt.
Wealth is non-taxable
Unless Trump loses...?
After college I took a low-paying job in a field that suited me quite well.
Some of my friends made more money, and sometimes I would wish I were paid as much as they seemed to be.
Then, one day, I realized this: I am not diminished if somebody else has something. I stopped comparing myself to others.
Over the years, my family has matched our costs to our income, or, more frequently, to less than our income.
All has worked out fine.
I didn't bother to check but did the income equation include transfer payments? (I'd reckon not.)
Because I know we can settle nearly anywhere on earth and live like the upstairs people on "Upstairs,Downstairs", in our retirement.
My younger son and his family are in North Caroline looking for a retirement home. Their close friends sold their Orange County home about a year ago and bought, for cash, a bigger home outside Atlanta. Part of the exodus.
I feel rich, and it is all relative. We have two houses, and both are some of the more expensive around. The two together cost about what several other brothers spent for single houses. Here in MT, it is because we live in one of the poorest counties in the state. If we were to move to one of the yuppie towns like Missoula or Bozeman, we would likely feel quite middle class. And a coed I know who’s is going to college in Bozeman teaches skiing at the Yellowstone Club. Cheapest condo there is seven digits, and low eight digits for a real house. She feels really poor in comparison, but the tips are good enough that she and her boyfriend (who also teaches there) live much better than the other college kids there.
The problem I face though is that I have spent most of my life as upper middle class, living in nicer suburbs, etc. This winter we are planning on looking for a new house N and NE of PHX, instead of where we are. Expect the price will double, moving from two to one story. Be upper middle class again. I keep pushing for moving from here in MT down to Sandpoint, but she won’t have it, since her ex and his farm are just down river from here. Besides, it is nice having more votes than anyone else in the HOA besides the bank (I picked up the adjacent lots last summer to protect our view and keep neighbors from encroaching).
Something else. We popped down to PHX recently to see her doctor. He wants her to check in quarterly, and this worked out well, taking a grandson and friend back with us. A decade ago, I was averaging a round trip a week, better than 100 flights a year. Half that was my flying back to see my kid on weekends. Flew as cheap as I could. This may have been the only flights we make this year, so the $400 for first class tickets for each of us (the kids were back in the cattle car) was easy to justify, esp with two free bags, free booze, actual choice of meal, and more room for the cat. Sure, airline flying has come down a lot over the last half century or so, but it was decadent enough up in first class for us. Little hot towels served with tongs to wash our hands, cloth napkins, etc. We could pretend, for a short time that we really were rich.
“Who is rich? He who is content with his lot.” Ben Zoma
Blogger daskol said...
Even by that narrow definition
What "narrow definition"?
wouldn't the estate tax constitute a wealth tax? Or is the intergenerational transfer of wealth also somehow income?
The point you are missing, and that most politicians and many others miss or willfully ignore, is that income is not wealth, wealth is not income. (A number of people have pointed this out here) Jeff Bezos is worth $160 billion (wealth). He receives about $89,000 (not a typo) in income from Amazon. How many farmers own farms or ranches worth millions but work an extra job to make ends meet?
Remember a few months ago when we read Bonfire of the Vanities "Sherman McCoy was going broke on $1mm per year". Think of how many professional athletes, entertainers and others you read about who make millions in income but, because they spend it faster than it comes, they are broke or in debt. No wealth at all.
At one point in the 80s Donald Trump was tens of millions of dollars underwater. Was he "wealthy" then?
Re the estate tax:
I could argue it either way: That the estate tax is a tax on wealth or that when an asset is transferred, the increased value becomes "income" to the recipient.
I also said that there were a few exceptions, mentioning property tax. Could have included the estate tax.
Another argument would be that since I am dead, my wealth is not being taxed. What is being taxed is monies/assets received by others. A sort of income.
Estate taxes are also largely avoidable. They are mainly a tax on stupidity.
In any event, where in the Constitution is a tax on wealth permitted?
“Really? Capital gains taxes, while lower than income tax, are still formidable.”
When you sell assets for a gain, that becomes income, in the form of capital gains. Don’t sell, and no capital gains. Last I knew, Warren Buffet was still living in the same house he has had for many decades in Omaha. And despite his immense wealth has never taken much in salary or dividends, content to allow his company stock to appreciate tax free. Yugely. I think that it is Jeff Bezos who is doing similarly with his fortune, taking a tiny sliver as income every year.
Blogger JAORE said...
Wealth is non-taxable
Unless Trump loses...?
How would the most rabid anti-wealth politician tax wealth?
What would be the mechanism?
The Constitution prohibits it the same way it prohibits the income tax. It took 16A to get an income tax.
Do you really think an amendment taxing wealth could get passed?
Would get passed?
Remember, Jeff Bezos et al don't care 2 shits about income tax. They have next to no income to pay tax on.
But start talking about a wealth tax that would tap into his billions and ...
John Henry
A person runs at the speed of 12 miles per minute. Is that a long distance?
Is annual income a measure of "richness?" I think not. The NYT muddles the meaning of words. Bad writing, NYT. Bad.
"Wealthy" is a better term than "rich." It better connotes "large quantity of disposable assets." Oranges are rich, not wealthy, in vitamin C.
If a person has $100 million in disposable assets but lives frugally drawing only $30.000 per year, is that person rich? By judgement of the NYT, probably not.
The only real luxury would be to buy a cool vintage auto of some sort. I want a 1949 Buick Roadmaster Convertable :-)
Have you checked out a Morgan? They’re British.
21st century tech, mid-20th century lines.
This flip-flop is always played, especially during election years. You’ll also never get a straight answer to who’s “the rich.”
It doesn't matter how much you have, you never think you have enough.
Even if you make a million dollars a year, you'll sign your kid over to a guardian to qualify for need-based scholarships.
Even by that narrow definition, wouldn't the estate tax constitute a wealth tax? Or is the intergenerational transfer of wealth also somehow income?
The Estate Tax is a tax on accumulated wealth. However, currently the unified credit/exemptions are so high that not many ordinary people end up paying (federal) Estate Taxes upon death.
Financial planning can take care of almost all concerns about that.
Beware of annuities as an estate planning program. The inherited annuity is taxable to the beneficiary
"In a situation where the beneficiary selected for the annuity is not a spouse, the funds in the plan are taxable to the recipient at his or her normal tax rate. Rather than receiving the money as a lump sum, the recipient may wish to receive payments over time to spread out the tax liability."
In New York, unlike the rest of America, anyone is welcome. One-bedroom apartments start at $1.9 million.
Are You Rich? This Income- Rank Quiz Might Change How You See Yourself.
Point. Completely. Missed.
If the sum of your wealth and income exceeds your desires, you are rich. (I'm not religious, but it seems to me that Christianity might have a great deal of useful things to say on this subject.)
I mightily want a shiny new Ferrari La Ferrari, even though that is the silliest name given to anything ever. But I'm having to get by on bog-standard Porsche 911 income. I am poor.
Instead if, like any sensible person, I am happy with a late model used Ford Focus and I'm having to get by on bog-standard 911 income, then I am rich.
Viewing oneself as wealthy or poor is a state of mind, not numbers on a W-2 and balance sheet.
I think I'm probably repeating, less artfully, what Meade (who is truly on fire today) has already said.
Fitzgerald is right and so is Hemingway. The rich do think they're better. My nephew married a billionaire's daughter. I went to the wedding. Money flowed. So did contempt for the middle class. It was subtle and real.
Money doesn't make you better but it can make you worse.
If you haven’t lived with enough planning and frugality in your early years, or been blessed with parents who provided you with college tuition/down payment on your first house/etc, it’s very expensive to be middle class.
Depends.
When I was a kid (graduated HS in 1973), middle class was 2000 square feet, three bedrooms, 1.5 baths, no air conditioning, maybe a dishwasher, barely two car garage, one landline, and a TV that got 7 channels (2,4,5,7,9,11 and PBS on UHF), and POS cars that wouldn't be worth $10 today.
Today, that would be considered near grinding poverty.
And I was living in one of the richest communities in the US — San Marino, CA.
So, if one is willing to put up with that kind of grinding deprivation, living a middle-class lifestyle is nearly free.
Damn those goalposts.
If one is willing to undergo the cruel deprivation
Some of this perception may be rooted in the lopsided nature of income distribution in the United States, in which the very top earners have made extraordinary gains. In a country where the top 1 percent earns about one-fifth of the national income, it can seem as if “the rich” really means “the megarich.”
FFS, if I ever wanted the perfect example of question begging, this would be it.
I don't know anyone who is remotely megarich. Except for those who have long since succumbed to the lump-of-labor fallacy, the megarich haven't deprived anyone of anything.
Which leads to a much more fundamental question. We really have no need to be concerned about excess wealth. Rather, it is excess poverty that should stir our souls.
Is excess poverty relative, or absolute?
No one is rich unless their wealth is income independent.
Even if your income is 8 million a year, it can still end, and when it ends, you're screwed.
Rich means, you lose your job, you're not screwed.
You’re no longer middle class when you don’t have to work for a living. This is why high income people like me still feel middle class.
People often have false perspective on other's wealth, e.g. they don't know the other's mortgages, debts, lease vs. own, etc.
Middle class for me was a pink collar mom and a dad who was a salesman at Sears.
I think 1800 sf new. 3Bd 1-1/2 bath dishwasher garbage disposal fireplace no air. The laundry room also housed the furnace and crawl space entrance. It took them another 1-2 years to get air. Coming from a mobile home, mom told me she looked at it and thought, “How am I going to clean it all?”
Their retirement townhouse was just as big.
No granite countertops. No high end appliances. 5-3/4% mortgage.
It's a bit misleading for the quiz to ask me for the nearest metro area. I live near to, but outside of, such an area, and I know the incomes in my county are lower.
I'd play along if the NYT revealed the results of its editorial staff. Otherwise, FO.
...and I'm wrong. The average household income in my county is higher than the nearest two cities in that sprawling
metro area.
The RATS will empty the inheritable IRAs. 2-5 years.
Warren Buffet was still living in the same house he has had for many decades in Omaha.
He just sold his house in Laguna Beach for a few million. Must have cashed a few chips.
Rich is when your investment income equals your salary. Implicit in that you've learned not to spend every penny or that you've managed to contribute to your inheritance.
Blogger Hey Skipper said...
POS cars that wouldn't be worth $10 today.
When Hyundai first came to the US in the mid-80s, it was a car for people who could not afford the quality and luxury of a Yugo.
They've gotten much better. My 2011 Hyundai Elantra is probably the best car I've ever owned.
Cost new was about $18m all in.
Remember back int eh 60s you could figure on taking your car to a mechanic about once a month or spending a saturday afternoon cleaning plugs, gapping points, replacing the condenser, rebuilding the carburetor, adjusting the brakes and so on?
My Hyundai started running a bit rough last week so I took it in to Pep Boys to fix. They found a cracked coil. They also recommended that I replace the plugs. They were OK, they said, didn't really need replacement right away, but I might as well do it now.
First time in 9 years and 125m miles anyone has even looked at the plugs.
Yeah, I spent the extra $50 and replaced them.
I think any car built before about 2000, if you could get it brand new today, would be an expensive POS.
Other than wear stuff like brakes, oil change etc, I've had almost nothing needing to be fixed on the Hyundai.
John Henry
From your standards I was expecting to be labeled rich. I did top 5% too and we are very comfortable (but I am a cheapskate). We're in the 60th percentile. The top 5% is making over 200k out here in the South.
I'd play along if the NYT revealed the results of its editorial staff. Otherwise, FO.
Its reporters average less than $100k, no great fortune in Manhattan.
Just checked the numbers for Denver where we lived until last year. It is accurate that I am richer here than I am there.
Hey! 90th percentile! Of course I live in a relatively inexpensive part of the country. Add in I have no mortgage, low property taxes and have been retired 9 years..... I'm OK, thank you very much.
By John Henry's definition, wealth is tended like the glass menagerie: look at it, accumulate it, take good care of it, but try to realize anything from it, and it's no longer wealth. Actually realizing something from it transforms it, and it's no longer wealth. It's a workable definition. But in terms of feeling rich, I'm with the folks who say if you no longer need to work to support yourself, if you're sitting on "fuck you" money or even if you feel that way, that's feeling rich. I think that's more autonomous than rich, but autonomy is worth a lot.
[Dark Island:] When Hyundai first came to the US in the mid-80s, it was a car for people who could not afford the quality and luxury of a Yugo.
They've gotten much better. My 2011 Hyundai Elantra is probably the best car I've ever owned.
Cost new was about $18m all in.
Exactly.
We get told ad nauseum how inflation adjusted incomes have stagnated over the last forty or so years.
So, roll the calendar back to 1980. How much money would you have to spend to get a car as good as your seven year old Hyundai?
That's a question without an answer, because infinity isn't a number.
Louis C.K. on Comedians in Cars came up with a good rule for managing your wealth that could be generalized.
“Don’t buy a yacht unless you can really afford ten just like it."
"There are a lot of NYC apartments available at $1200 or so a month."
Really? How many is "a lot?" Where are they?
So, I stand by my statement that in the US we pay no taxes on wealth.
John Henry
Wealth held in the form of property subject to local/city/state property taxes is taxed, of course. Real estate is often a large component of an individual or family's total wealth so I don't think you can ignore that particular tax. It is, furthermore, what people like Sen. Warren point to when they say that "we already tax some wealth" as they argue for additional wealth taxes.
The rich do think they're better. My nephew married a billionaire's daughter. I went to the wedding. Money flowed. So did contempt for the middle class. It was subtle and real.
Spring and early summer, my main fishing guide works in Casper where he belongs; but for a few years, he worked late summers at an exclusive fishing resort on the Henry's Fork in Idaho ($500 a night, PLUS $500 a day guide fees).
He kept on me to go, and i finally decided; "what else do i have to do with my money?" (this was before i realized i could retire early). I figured that the place would be full of millionaires.
I was WRONG! There wasn't a single millionaire there; they were all fricking Billionaires
(think, like Bill Gate's Mom or the former CEO of Seagate Technology )
They ALL treated me adorably, like i was a pet dog or something.
One lady was Staggered when she found out i'd slept in my car on the way out
"This guy is SO INTO fishing, that he Slept in His Car!" she said to her husband
I'd slept in my car because it was FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS A NIGHT to sleep at the resort, and 3 nights (and 2 days fishing) was all i could afford.
It was nice though (especially laughing with the guides at the Billionaire Clients), and i saved up and went again (when i caught my profile pic fish {26" brown, on a size 18 mercer's micro mayfly, on the Henrys Fork, a mile above the Fun Farm Bridge }. But Billionaires interactions with regular people consist of interactions with waitresses and fishing guides (oh, and occasionally with people spending the equivalent of THREE fly rods on a few nights at a resort ).
So, roll the calendar back to 1980. How much money would you have to spend to get a car as good as your seven year old Hyundai?
That's a question without an answer, because infinity isn't a number.
roll back to 1980, How much money would the NSA pay for the computer you are reading this on now?
I should admit: I read all about Warren's plans for a wealth tax and alternate proposals to expand the estate tax and had a nasty thought. If all of "our" money is held hostage in the hands of a few thousand mega-rich people and families and if the two problems with the current estate tax is that it can't get that money until the current owners die (the NPR story said something like "the estate tax should be higher but at any rate it can't access the enormous wealth currently held by tech giants for several decades") and the fact that with adequate planning mega-rich people can avoid having to pay estate taxes when passing down their wealth then wouldn't it be something close to a patriotic duty to immediately murder as many mega rich people as we can?
I try to think through incentives. If the government's funding for program X depends in large part on the revenue raised on the occasion of some mega-rich person's death it seems like the incentive there is for the government and/or the (presumably numerous) beneficiaries of program X to desire the death of those mega-rich people.
Sure it's morally questionable to murder Zark Fuckerberg but if someone were to put a bullet into his likely-cyborg head the US Treasury would receive $X billion and that could be used to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and heal the sick. What's one guy's life against all the good that can be done with the wealth he's hoarding?
Not necessarily.
Buffet a few years ago finally decided to get into charity because Gates convinced him to.
It was estimated the Treasury lost about $5 billion.
Maybe the USG should approach it a different way. Cap the contributions and limit how many charities they can fund or start.
This is one reason so many people believe Democratic presidential candidates when they say it will be easy to pay for the good stuff they promise. People think there's a lot more money being made than there is, and that there are a lot more rich people than there are (which also means they think lots of people aren't paying their fair share).
Apparently I am sufficiently self-aware to know and understand that by my own definition I am rich.
Are you poor? Is that why you need free college and free healthcare?
So does this mean that there are a lot more people in big blue cities with no income skewing the averages?
Blogger Hey Skipper said...
So, roll the calendar back to 1980. How much money would you have to spend to get a car as good as your seven year old Hyundai?
Actually, there are 4 dimensions to that:
1) Actual cost of the car. My first new car was a 68 Chevy Nova. I paid about $3000 for it. Inflation adjusted, that is probably 30,000 in 2011. I paid 18 for the Hyundai
2) Operating costs Low to minimum maintenance on the Hyundai. Especially compared to a 60s or 70s car.
3) Lifetime of the car. A 60s car was not expected to go 100,000 miles or last more than 3-4 years. My wife is driving a 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander with 250,000 miles. Good for many more.
4) Features A/C, power door locks, power steering, Am/FM/CD/Bluetooth radio, Reclining seats, carpet instead of rubber on the floor, 35-40MPG compared to 10-15 and so on. Standard on the Hyundai. Optional $$$$ Extras on the Chevy.
John Henry
I did get a cigarette lighter and ashtray standard on the Chevy.
Sadly lacking on the Hyundai
John Henry
The 400 richest Americans, which includes 400 of the 585 billionaires have a wealth of 2.7 trillion dollars. If you split that equally with every person in the US, it would be roughly 8,500 dollars/person which would buy that person roughly 1/3 of a car- and you only buy that if you have liquidated the distributed assets, which not every can do at the same time without crashing the "value" of the assets, and if everyone could liquidate for the $8500 for cash, everyone spending it at roughly the same time would also crash the value of the cash itself.
If John Henry weren't so vehement in his claim that in the US we do not pay taxes on wealth, I would not write to correct him. Everyone who has wealth in the form of real estate pays property tax based on the estimated value of the property. 27 states have annual automobile property taxes based on the value of the car. I agree with John Henry that we do not pay taxes on wealth held as financial instruments (stocks bonds etc). But real estate and automobile equity comprise more than 50% of household wealth in the US.
John Henry,
Online cost of living calculators I checked just now say 3000 1968 dollars is 19,500 in 2011 dollars. Of course, I do think most of these inflation calculators probably understate inflation, but I doubt it is by 100%
And, to add to my first comment- that 2.7 trillion gets distributed once
So if they ask what the nearest metro area is and THEN use that as a measure of how rich you are....the test is idiotic.
The nearest Metro area to me is over 300 miles. SF Bay area. Of course we would be poor in SF. That is the fuck why we don't live there....besides being an urban area of any kind.
In the area where we live our income is MORE than adequate to be living comfortably plus...privacy, open spaces, natural surroundings, peace and quiet.
You couldn't GIVE me enough money to live in a "Metro Area".
I definitely consider myself rich- I don't have to work. I haven't worked in 10 years as of last week, and have significantly more assets than I did then by almost 50%, and I am not even counting the pension I can draw from if I chose to, and the Social Security I can access in just another 9 years (though I will probably delay taking it until at least 65). However, I couldn't live in SF or NY safely simply due to housing costs, but then I don't want to either.
[Puerto Rican etc ...] Actually, there are 4 dimensions to that:
Which means that the lower middle class of today, with respect to transportation, is unimaginably wealthy compared to every billionaire of 1980.
And the same could be said of at least a half dozen other things.
The term for this is "hedonic inflation". The CPI does a horrible job of taking it into account.
[DBQ:] You couldn't GIVE me enough money to live in a "Metro Area".
I had always lived in either suburbia, or even further out.
For the last five years, I have lived in Duesseldorf, Germany. Very metro. Almost everything is within walking distance. Our car never leaves the garage except for fun stuff — I probably drive an average of one and a half times a month. Apartment living is far simpler than owning a house.
In three months, we are moving back to a nice suburban house in Boise, ID.
Can't wait.
How would the most rabid anti-wealth politician tax wealth?
Ask Warren.
I agree it would be a nightmare.
And the Constitution seems to preclude that (although some argue the 16th A was not,technically,needed). Also the estate tax seems to be a wealth tax to me. But Uncle Sam gets around that pesky unconstitutional hurdle many of us see. But when BOTH sides before the Supreme Court argued that the ACA did NOT include a tax, but Roberts found one anyway.....
Lots of crap I thought impossible a few years ago are commonly applied today.
I had to give up polo. It just costs too much to keep a string of ponies, especially when you live in NYC....John D. Rockefeller only had one full golf course on his estates. He had several estates with two or three holes laid out, but there was only one estate with a full golf course. Even John D. Rockefeller had to make do.
@ HeySkipper
I grew up in the Bay Area. Lived in SF for some years. Still have family in the Bay and areas south and do go to visit often. I can handle short visits.
So I do have a basis of comparison. My animus to city living is based on experience.
My lifestyle would be horrible to some people too. I get that. I don't blame people for city living. You do what you need to do in life. Everyone has different wants and needs. There are trade offs for living anywhere.
Now and for the last 35 years I have lived in a rural, very rural area. I love the small town atmosphere. Actually, we don't even have a real town. The open spaces. Relaxed life style. Wildlife. Green spaces for miles. Clean air. Clean water. All things that make life worthwhile....to me.
It isn't that I don't like people....I just don't like them living cheek to jowl. People above you. Below you. Next to you. Surrounded by other people whose lives and noise intrudes onto yours. AND Vice Versa. Having to be careful to not disturb your neighbors. Not being able to do what you want on your own property.
Traffic. Noise. Lights everywhere. Smells. Dirt. Crowds. Crowds. Nightmare.
Apartment living would be horrible. I did that and hated it even when I was young. I'll do everything I can to put off having to be warehoused in an apartment style living. Then...I'll probably just kill myself.
Blogger h said...
Everyone who has wealth in the form of real estate pays property tax based on the estimated value of the property.
First I was speaking of Federal taxes. Second I did make an exception for property taxes. Third, property tax is charged on the value of the property, not on the owner's wealth. A person who owns the house free and clear pays the same tax as someone who owes twice the value.
27 states have annual automobile property taxes based on the value of the car.
And at least some states call them "Road use fee" or some such. They also only charge it if the car is registered (generally). If I have an unlicensed pickup that I use around my own property, it is still wealth but is likely not taxed. Ditto an unregistered collectible car that I keep in my garage. At least not the same way it would be if registered for road use. And, as with the house, it does not matter how much equity or wealth you have in the car, it is taxed on the value or some other factor.
So tell me how a federal wealth tax could be constitutionally instituted?
Tell me how it would get around Article 1, Section 9
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
And, just to be painfully clear, I am talking only about the Federal Govt's power to tax wealth. Different states may have the power to tax wealth. Or may not. Depends on state constitution.
John Henry
[DBQ:] It isn't that I don't like people....I just don't like them living cheek to jowl. People above you. Below you. Next to you. Surrounded by other people whose lives and noise intrudes onto yours. AND Vice Versa. Having to be careful to not disturb your neighbors. Not being able to do what you want on your own property.
I haven't been able to turn Pink Floyd up to 11 — heck, three is asking for it — in five years.
FIVE YEARS!
“though I will probably delay taking it until at least 65”
Why? Given your circumstances, why spend down your own money when you could be collecting SS? If you should die, the SS money is completely gone... poof! Spend it while you are alive and save the cash you can hand on to your heirs.
The only way to get the kind of money Warren needs is regressive taxation, a VAT. The US has the most progressive taxation of any first world country. Taxing the rich is good in itself, is how she sees it, it’s not a serious proposal to fund her programs, but given her work on bankruptcy, she may actually have no clue.
"So tell me how a federal wealth tax could be constitutionally instituted?"
Poorly. Why do you think that would stop them?
"Tell me how it would get around Article 1, Section 9"
By packing the Court.
The reason that European countries and Canada can spend so much is that they tax the poor too. We let anybody below the median income off the hook for Federal income taxes and there are not that many Federal sales taxes that impact the lower tier of earners.
I have gone from homeless to wealthy, and I was happier being poor. The demands and responsibilities of being wealthy ruin it. If you can stop worrying about unlikely stuff, the best is probably in the middle where you can afford to have what you need, and get laid, but everybody doesn't consider you an ATM that solves their problems. I imagine that best of all is to be wealthy and not give a shit about anyone or anything. That has got to rule! I need to figure out how to get there. Maybe some therapy would do it.
So...the test tells me I'm not rich, but doesn't ask a thing about my home equity, which is about a cool million net.
The test doesn't ask about other assets, either.
My wife and I will have a $95,000/yr income even after she retires next year, and that's w/o touching her 401(k). [We're saving that for travel, and emergencies.]
We live in a high-tax state, MA.
So, we're not "rich", just damn comfortable, which is where most Americans would like to wind up.
Many have noted that wealth is a better test for being rich than income. The problem is the NYT generating envy to those working to better themselves versus say a Kennedy overdosing in the family compound at 22 years of age. Most of us don't have the richness of the Kennedy's, although we might have been earning more via labor than the 22 year old.
i took the test, at it says i'm SUPER POOR
I've been living on the proceeds of the sale of my house in Ames for the last two years; and i only took money out of my 401K to buy my new fishing van. So my income for this year will be about $25,000. My 401K MADE more money than i spent on the Van, so my assets haven't been touched this year (hurray!).
So, my net worth INCREASED. Pretty good for a poor person.
On the other hand, if my main fishing guide was STILL working at the fancy fishing resort on the Henrys Fork, i'd have had to withdraw another $10,000 bucks or so.
The NYTs then would have said that i was rich!
Yes. We came out as being poor because the 'test' wants to think that I live in the SF Bay area.
Hardly. Our income puts us in the top 20% for our locality. The house and land we live in here would be a multi million dollar property in SF localities. Our housing expenses are low.
There are trade offs of course. A lack of first class restaurants. I do miss that....but.... I'll live. Learn to cook. Not a lot of great shopping opportunities. Amazon.com takes care of that and we can always take a weekend trip to go shopping. Things cost more locally, but then again the trade off is that everything else that is important costs less or is priceless.
We can go fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, boating, swimming all within a few minutes of our area. Stunning views and wide open spaces. Neighbors near enough but far enough away too.
If I really miss the Bay Area it is just 5 or 6 hours away and I can visit.
So even if the NYT says I am poor. They don't know what they are talking about.
I am rich!!
I've been poor, and I've been rich. I was happier poor. If you can manage to not worry about stuff, being in the middle is best. You have your needs covered, you're not hungry or cold, but you also avoid everyone thinking you are an ATM machine designed to fix their problems, which are usually a result of them doing things that you have avoided your whole life and which you told them not to do.
Nothing is more irritating than having sacrificed so long to get secure and free only to be stuck with other people's crap choices. I think the best situation of all would be to be rich and not give a shit about anyone or anything. I wonder if there is a therapist that can get me there.
And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself in another part of the world
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife
And you may ask yourself, "Well... how did I get here?"
[Chorus]
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
[Verse 2]
And you may ask yourself, "How do I work this?"
And you may ask yourself, "Where is that large automobile?"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife"
[Chorus]
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
[Bridge]
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
I have health and every thing I need and most of what I want but still I think I'm in the category of the people who are supposed to get some of this money or this wealth when it get taxed. But I know I won't. I'm not sure where the money goes when socialism taxes it away from the rich or wealthy; but I am sure that if you don't have a lot of money you won't have any more under socialism. OTOH everything you now have will actually be more expensive and unaffordable; or else it will be banned. Like fresh fruits and vegetables - these always disappear for the those without a lot of money under socialism. Air conditioners and cars will be banned. Socialism is just a way of making life hell for those at the bottom and putting more people there.
My thoughts-
Answering the NYT based on large metropolitan areas is pure stupid unless you want to live in said metropolitan areas. But then we are dealing largely with New Yorkers in this survey. (A great reason to have someone attack NYC in a EMP attack and destroy their power grid for a long period of time. Might give these folks some humility.)
Very few people have a guaranteed income other than purchasers of annuities, pensioners, and people with government program payments.
And comparing yourself to what your neighbors can buy sounds so juvenile.
"In America you can have zero income and still be the richest person in the world for all eternity because you are free to choose to believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior."
Amen to that!
"Why? Given your circumstances, why spend down your own money when you could be collecting SS? If you should die, the SS money is completely gone... poof! Spend it while you are alive and save the cash you can hand on to your heirs."
Manages the risk a bit- the longer one can delay taking it, the more the monthly benefit is. If I thought I would die young, like at 67, sure, I would take it at 62, but I don't expect that to happen. Same thing with the pension- I can take it starting at 55, but if I wait until I am 65, it is more than twice the monthly payment. I come out ahead as long as I live to at least 74. Yes, it is a gamble, but not an insane one.
No one knows what the word ‘rich’ means, which is why politicians - mostly democrats - use it all the time. They convince you that you aren’t one of the rich, but the rich need penalizing. They use two different definitions in one sentence.
That’s all it comes down to. In the US, rich is a meaningless concept if it were not for politicians.
The middle class doesn’t realize that if you don’t have debt, you can live quite well on a modest income (whatever ‘modest’ means; see the definition of ‘rich’).
The left media, through its first mover the NY Times, again - stupidly? childishly? malevolently? or a combination of these? - confuses wealth and income (secondarily confusing the meaning of income using gross numbers before taxes, unmoored to costs of living, and measured using the period of revolution of the planet about its star and thus of no relevance).
"The middle class doesn’t realize that if you don’t have debt, you can live quite well on a modest income (whatever ‘modest’ means; see the definition of ‘rich’)." -- The levitation of asset prices US style requires recurring and ever-increasing levels of indebtedness. That most people count the value of their assets primarily by their residence, which is always subject to idle trading, means that the sense of savings (or capital accumulation) by the middle class (which is disappearing into the nominal upper class by the way) depends entirely on incurrence of ever-higher levels of debt, evermore.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा